The former CEO of Merrill Lynch now says he wishes that he's bought furniture at Ikea for his office redecoration rather than the $35,000 toilet and $25,000 table he actually bought as part of the $1,200,000 project.
"Does anyone need a $60,000 car? ... Does anyone really need to be told, over and over, spitting in the wind comes back at you twice as hard?"
- Lou Reed, "Strawman"
Showing posts with label humanity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label humanity. Show all posts
Friday, September 18, 2009
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
The outrage outrage
We all love a good scandal, especially a spending scandal that reconfirms our inherent belief that we're getting horrifically ripped off by someone else's free ride. However, I wonder if this whole process hasn't gotten out of hand, and I know that it's warped our sense of priority.
The current Ontario Lottery & Gaming Corporation scandal is a great example. The spending orgy! Five "hefty black binders" to outline all their incredible profligacy! Why, it's pigs at the trough, again!
I don't know about you, but I was really hoping for some Caligula-like excess that would be fun to read about. If what the Globe & Mail published today were the most outrageous examples of what they could glean from those binders, it runs the gamut from ordinary to inoffensive to ill-advised. I'm an Ontario taxpayer and all set to be cheesed off, but I have to say I question the editorial judgment that runs a large-type list of alleged excesses, attached to the employees' names, that includes an Obus Forme back rest and back support (total value about $200) for a guy making about $103,000 a year. Seems reasonable to me. And yes, expensing your $1.12 cloth bag from Sobey's doesn't seem smart, but why do I (or Canada's National Newspaper) care? And yes, "suit for meeting" or "ink cartridge for home printer" seem problematic on the face of it, but there might be some context in which they make sense - the attitude seems to be that just printing the list will elicit that Pavlovian reaction of fury that the editor is gunning for. From the government's point of view, at least, it seemed to work.
Surely we've got bigger things to worry about. The forecast provincial deficit for 2009-2010 is $14.1 billion. That's about 70.5 million back support sets at $200 per. Let alone the question of why we have a government agency to exploit gambling in the first place. I'm enough of a libertarian to think people should generally be able to do what they want with their money - but I have no idea why we need a government organization to run the activity. Yes, it raises revenue, but from whom and with what kind of implication? It makes the government complicit in some pretty ugly personal situations. And the efforts to "address" the social ills they're helping to create are laughable: according to their own statistics, "partnering in the education, research, prevention and treatment of problem gambling" cost $44 million, or less than $1.00 for every $36 awarded in prizes during the year (a total of $1.6 billion, in a province with about 12 million people in it). [Besides, is "partnering" the same as actually doing anything, or more like writing a guilty cheque? How much of that $44 million in fact paid for expenses of the employees of OLG's "partners"? Maybe the Globe needs to get on that.]
Finally, I think all the focus on nickels and dimes misses the best part of this story. Among the board members who have resigned (been forced to resign?) as a consequence of this is the "President and CEO of the Institute of Corporate Directors". The mission of this organization is "to represent the interests of directors — to foster excellence in directors to strengthen the governance and performance of Canadian corporations. We will achieve this mission through education, certification and advocacy of best practices in governance." Presumably the OLG is now a case study? It's also a shame not to note that of the six new directors, three are deputy ministers and two are assistant deputy ministers. So from this we can conclude, I guess, that government-owned corporations are better run by career civil servants than anybody else? Or maybe it's that the whole mess is irredeemably compromised by its confused purpose in the first place.
The current Ontario Lottery & Gaming Corporation scandal is a great example. The spending orgy! Five "hefty black binders" to outline all their incredible profligacy! Why, it's pigs at the trough, again!
I don't know about you, but I was really hoping for some Caligula-like excess that would be fun to read about. If what the Globe & Mail published today were the most outrageous examples of what they could glean from those binders, it runs the gamut from ordinary to inoffensive to ill-advised. I'm an Ontario taxpayer and all set to be cheesed off, but I have to say I question the editorial judgment that runs a large-type list of alleged excesses, attached to the employees' names, that includes an Obus Forme back rest and back support (total value about $200) for a guy making about $103,000 a year. Seems reasonable to me. And yes, expensing your $1.12 cloth bag from Sobey's doesn't seem smart, but why do I (or Canada's National Newspaper) care? And yes, "suit for meeting" or "ink cartridge for home printer" seem problematic on the face of it, but there might be some context in which they make sense - the attitude seems to be that just printing the list will elicit that Pavlovian reaction of fury that the editor is gunning for. From the government's point of view, at least, it seemed to work.
Surely we've got bigger things to worry about. The forecast provincial deficit for 2009-2010 is $14.1 billion. That's about 70.5 million back support sets at $200 per. Let alone the question of why we have a government agency to exploit gambling in the first place. I'm enough of a libertarian to think people should generally be able to do what they want with their money - but I have no idea why we need a government organization to run the activity. Yes, it raises revenue, but from whom and with what kind of implication? It makes the government complicit in some pretty ugly personal situations. And the efforts to "address" the social ills they're helping to create are laughable: according to their own statistics, "partnering in the education, research, prevention and treatment of problem gambling" cost $44 million, or less than $1.00 for every $36 awarded in prizes during the year (a total of $1.6 billion, in a province with about 12 million people in it). [Besides, is "partnering" the same as actually doing anything, or more like writing a guilty cheque? How much of that $44 million in fact paid for expenses of the employees of OLG's "partners"? Maybe the Globe needs to get on that.]
Finally, I think all the focus on nickels and dimes misses the best part of this story. Among the board members who have resigned (been forced to resign?) as a consequence of this is the "President and CEO of the Institute of Corporate Directors". The mission of this organization is "to represent the interests of directors — to foster excellence in directors to strengthen the governance and performance of Canadian corporations. We will achieve this mission through education, certification and advocacy of best practices in governance." Presumably the OLG is now a case study? It's also a shame not to note that of the six new directors, three are deputy ministers and two are assistant deputy ministers. So from this we can conclude, I guess, that government-owned corporations are better run by career civil servants than anybody else? Or maybe it's that the whole mess is irredeemably compromised by its confused purpose in the first place.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Presidential beer choices
Without getting into the politics of it, following are apparently the beer choices for today's White House meeting:
"The president will drink Bud Light, Gates will have Red Stripe, and Crowley will drink Blue Moon, [White House spokesman] Gibbs said."
Blue Moon, for Canadians, is just "Rickard's White". There are many better witbiers around that aren't made by Coors, but it's still the best choice of the three on a Washington summer day.
Good heavens, man, Bud Light? I agree with this guy. Given the historic outcry over dijon on the burger, I know that he's got to choose carefully, but Sam Adams would have been a better way to go however you look at it. Especially for a contretemps originating in Cambridge, Mass.!
* * *
Update: this would have been a far more entertaining result.
* * *
Further update: now CNN is saying that the beer choices were as follows:
"The president was drinking Bud Light, Biden was drinking Buckler (a nonalcoholic beer), Gates was drinking Samuel Adams Light and Crowley was drinking Blue Moon."
Leaving poor Joe out of it for the moment (nonalcoholic beer being like decaffeinated Diet Coke - why, o why?), where's the scandal over the Gates switcheroo? There needs to be a crack team of investigators on this. Was Red Stripe too culturally significant? However, Gates now gets the "best beer choice" award. Let's give the President the benefit of the doubt and assume he would have had the same but for the implications of siding with one of the combatants. Gosh, statecraft is hard.
"The president will drink Bud Light, Gates will have Red Stripe, and Crowley will drink Blue Moon, [White House spokesman] Gibbs said."
Blue Moon, for Canadians, is just "Rickard's White". There are many better witbiers around that aren't made by Coors, but it's still the best choice of the three on a Washington summer day.
Good heavens, man, Bud Light? I agree with this guy. Given the historic outcry over dijon on the burger, I know that he's got to choose carefully, but Sam Adams would have been a better way to go however you look at it. Especially for a contretemps originating in Cambridge, Mass.!
* * *
Update: this would have been a far more entertaining result.
* * *
Further update: now CNN is saying that the beer choices were as follows:
"The president was drinking Bud Light, Biden was drinking Buckler (a nonalcoholic beer), Gates was drinking Samuel Adams Light and Crowley was drinking Blue Moon."
Leaving poor Joe out of it for the moment (nonalcoholic beer being like decaffeinated Diet Coke - why, o why?), where's the scandal over the Gates switcheroo? There needs to be a crack team of investigators on this. Was Red Stripe too culturally significant? However, Gates now gets the "best beer choice" award. Let's give the President the benefit of the doubt and assume he would have had the same but for the implications of siding with one of the combatants. Gosh, statecraft is hard.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Why I hate the DH
This finally occurred to me on the road today, and I don't know why it didn't make sense earlier. Normally, in baseball, all nine players in the field have to take a turn hitting as well. The designated hitter (or "DH") rule allows a team to have an extra player hit for the pitcher - usually, pitchers are the weakest hitters on the team. The pitcher gets to pitch, but doesn't have to bat; the DH gets to hit, but doesn't have to play the field when the other team is batting.
When there is no DH rule, managers of baseball teams commonly encounter this dilemma: the game is close, the pitcher has pitched well but it's not clear how much longer he can pitch, and the pitcher's spot in the batting order comes up in a crucial situation. Do you let the offensive opportunity pass by to keep the good pitcher in the game? Or do you take the pitcher out for a pinch-hitter to improve the chances of scoring and then take your chances with a relief pitcher?
And here's the problem in a nutshell - the DH rules says "you don't have to choose". You can choose what to do with your pitcher without any consequence for your offence; you never need to worry about the pitcher's spot in the batting order coming up at a critical time.
What I hate about this is that it's a symptom of a serious problem, which is the belief that we never have to make choices between two good alternatives, or two bad alternatives, or that we can always avoid consequences from the decisions that we make.
Cases in point:
- we think it's important that city workers have the right to strike to support their negotiating position, but when they don't pick up the garbage we don't want it dumped in areas the public accesses;
- once there are dumps in public areas, we don't want rats and vermin, but we don't want chemicals sprayed that will keep them away either;
- we don't show any signs of using less electric power, but we sure don't want nuclear, either because (geez!) it's nuclear or because we can't afford it (even after three years of study and a lot of public subsidy to the only qualified bidder); and we don't want power stations based on any other kind of fuel either, because they'll add incrementally to air pollution even though they're radically more efficient than what they replace. Nonetheless, we'll all be surprised when, mysteriously, there isn't enough power.
Sometimes, you have to accept that letting that pitcher go to the seventh inning will mean you forego an offensive opportunity in the sixth. You can't always just change the rules of the game to avoid the choice, or its consequences.
When there is no DH rule, managers of baseball teams commonly encounter this dilemma: the game is close, the pitcher has pitched well but it's not clear how much longer he can pitch, and the pitcher's spot in the batting order comes up in a crucial situation. Do you let the offensive opportunity pass by to keep the good pitcher in the game? Or do you take the pitcher out for a pinch-hitter to improve the chances of scoring and then take your chances with a relief pitcher?
And here's the problem in a nutshell - the DH rules says "you don't have to choose". You can choose what to do with your pitcher without any consequence for your offence; you never need to worry about the pitcher's spot in the batting order coming up at a critical time.
What I hate about this is that it's a symptom of a serious problem, which is the belief that we never have to make choices between two good alternatives, or two bad alternatives, or that we can always avoid consequences from the decisions that we make.
Cases in point:
- we think it's important that city workers have the right to strike to support their negotiating position, but when they don't pick up the garbage we don't want it dumped in areas the public accesses;
- once there are dumps in public areas, we don't want rats and vermin, but we don't want chemicals sprayed that will keep them away either;
- we don't show any signs of using less electric power, but we sure don't want nuclear, either because (geez!) it's nuclear or because we can't afford it (even after three years of study and a lot of public subsidy to the only qualified bidder); and we don't want power stations based on any other kind of fuel either, because they'll add incrementally to air pollution even though they're radically more efficient than what they replace. Nonetheless, we'll all be surprised when, mysteriously, there isn't enough power.
Sometimes, you have to accept that letting that pitcher go to the seventh inning will mean you forego an offensive opportunity in the sixth. You can't always just change the rules of the game to avoid the choice, or its consequences.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Quote of the day
The Toronto Star has a story today about the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation's head, Kelly McDougald. One of the vignettes is about a gentleman who won the jackpot on a slot machine that was clearly advertised as having a maximum payout of $9,025, but the machine told him he had won $42.9 million. Of course, he's suing. But leaving the dubious merits of the lawsuit aside, I love the following statement by Ms. McDougald as reported by the Star:
Wait a minute - nobody controls technology? Good heavens! I thought the coffee maker was looking at me funny lately, and that explains a lot about Vista.
"We did offer him prior to going to the media a settlement of around $10,000 in
recognition of the inconvenience and frustration that he felt as well as,
obviously, the dinner (for four) that was publicized," said McDougald. "It's
very clear in the rules and in the signage that we do not pay on malfunctions.
It could have easily said – because nobody controls technology – `you've won $42
billion.'"
Wait a minute - nobody controls technology? Good heavens! I thought the coffee maker was looking at me funny lately, and that explains a lot about Vista.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Michael Jackson thought
I rarely have those, I must admit. However, if you're going to call your tour a "final curtain call" isn't it tradition that someone should actually be calling you to the curtain? Maybe I missed that. Or maybe he should just beat it?
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Poor Obama
OK, so all of the nominees for Commerce, Health and "Chief Performance Officer" for the US government have tax problems, severe enough to cause two of the three to withdraw (so far). As Oscar Wilde's line about lost parents goes, one is unfortunate but two shows carelessness. It would seem to be impossible (i) to get to Washington DC without being pretty darn well-off and (ii) to actually pay all your taxes once you're pretty darn well-off. Is this a problem with a highly-complex tax system or a more basic issue of greed?
Friday, November 14, 2008
Juxtaposition
Just sayin'.
Case 1:
Justice Harry LaForme broke his silence on Thursday over his sudden resignation last month from the commission into Indian Residential School abuse, saying his "moral code" gave him no choice but to leave after his authority was undermined.
LaForme, who is aboriginal, resigned as the chairman of the Indian Residential School Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Oct. 20 in a letter to Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl, less than six months into his mandate.
The Ontario Court of Appeal judge has not granted any interviews since his resignation, but he spoke about the decision for the first time in a speech that was part of a series of ethics lectures in Toronto's Ryerson University.
In his resignation letter, LaForme said the commission was on the verge of paralysis and doomed to failure. He cited an "incurable problem" with the other two commissioners, Claudette Dumont-Smith and Jane Brewin Morley, whom he said refused to accept his authority as chair and were disrespectful.
Speaking Thursday, LaForme said:
"I could not abdicate or surrender my dreams and visions about the truth and reconciliation commission to the two others — indeed, to two others who are relative strangers to me and to the historical and complex relationship that exists between aboriginal people and other peoples of Canada."
LaForme outlined how he and the two commissioners were given a framework for the commission that detailed their mandates.
"Assurances were given to me that it would be me and my vision that would chart, lead and direct the course of this very important and much-needed commission," he said.
"Thus, everyone knew, or certainly ought to have known, what the respective roles were to be."
Other commissioners disagreed
Laforme said that within months, however, that understanding changed. The two other commissioners felt that Laforme should not be above them and that all three should have equal authority. Laforme said Phil Fontaine, the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, also shared that view.
"Indeed, the two commissioners believed this with such sincerity that they retained a lawyer, who, in turn, presumably on their instructions, wanted me to execute a document that acknowledged my agreement with their position," he said. "My moral code dictated that I could not agree."
His voice often breaking, LaForme then spent the next half hour describing his moral code. He talked about tough times as a youngster on an Ontario reserve, overcoming violence and his father's alcoholism.
LaForme went on to complete an engineering degree and finish law school. He was appointed to the bench in 1994, but even there, he said, he faced racism and allegations that his was a token appointment.
"My moral code includes that I must be always mindful of what it means to be marginalized and ignored, to have despair and no hope," he said.
"I must remember how deafening the forced silence by another on another can be."
He left the stage with tears in his eyes and was embraced by his wife, who was crying.
Case 2:
Let me tell ya something. Nowadays, everybody's gotta go to shrinks, and counselors, and go on "Sally Jessy Raphael" and talk about their problems. What happened to Gary Cooper? The strong, silent type. That was an American. He wasn't in touch with his feelings. He just did what he had to do. See, what they didn't know was once they got Gary Cooper in touch with his feelings that they wouldn't be able to shut him up! And then it's dysfunction this, and dysfunction that, and dysfunction ma fangul!
Case 1:
Justice Harry LaForme broke his silence on Thursday over his sudden resignation last month from the commission into Indian Residential School abuse, saying his "moral code" gave him no choice but to leave after his authority was undermined.
LaForme, who is aboriginal, resigned as the chairman of the Indian Residential School Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Oct. 20 in a letter to Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl, less than six months into his mandate.
The Ontario Court of Appeal judge has not granted any interviews since his resignation, but he spoke about the decision for the first time in a speech that was part of a series of ethics lectures in Toronto's Ryerson University.
In his resignation letter, LaForme said the commission was on the verge of paralysis and doomed to failure. He cited an "incurable problem" with the other two commissioners, Claudette Dumont-Smith and Jane Brewin Morley, whom he said refused to accept his authority as chair and were disrespectful.
Speaking Thursday, LaForme said:
"I could not abdicate or surrender my dreams and visions about the truth and reconciliation commission to the two others — indeed, to two others who are relative strangers to me and to the historical and complex relationship that exists between aboriginal people and other peoples of Canada."
LaForme outlined how he and the two commissioners were given a framework for the commission that detailed their mandates.
"Assurances were given to me that it would be me and my vision that would chart, lead and direct the course of this very important and much-needed commission," he said.
"Thus, everyone knew, or certainly ought to have known, what the respective roles were to be."
Other commissioners disagreed
Laforme said that within months, however, that understanding changed. The two other commissioners felt that Laforme should not be above them and that all three should have equal authority. Laforme said Phil Fontaine, the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, also shared that view.
"Indeed, the two commissioners believed this with such sincerity that they retained a lawyer, who, in turn, presumably on their instructions, wanted me to execute a document that acknowledged my agreement with their position," he said. "My moral code dictated that I could not agree."
His voice often breaking, LaForme then spent the next half hour describing his moral code. He talked about tough times as a youngster on an Ontario reserve, overcoming violence and his father's alcoholism.
LaForme went on to complete an engineering degree and finish law school. He was appointed to the bench in 1994, but even there, he said, he faced racism and allegations that his was a token appointment.
"My moral code includes that I must be always mindful of what it means to be marginalized and ignored, to have despair and no hope," he said.
"I must remember how deafening the forced silence by another on another can be."
He left the stage with tears in his eyes and was embraced by his wife, who was crying.
Case 2:
Let me tell ya something. Nowadays, everybody's gotta go to shrinks, and counselors, and go on "Sally Jessy Raphael" and talk about their problems. What happened to Gary Cooper? The strong, silent type. That was an American. He wasn't in touch with his feelings. He just did what he had to do. See, what they didn't know was once they got Gary Cooper in touch with his feelings that they wouldn't be able to shut him up! And then it's dysfunction this, and dysfunction that, and dysfunction ma fangul!
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Scientific Breakthrough
This humble blog has the honour to introduce an entirely new unit of measure - the Jeffrey.
The Jeffrey is defined as the distance one is at any given time from a Jeffrey-Tambor-in-"And Justice For All"-style meltdown in which one shaves one's head and becomes a saffron-robed Hare Krishna, with one Jeffery being defined as the equilibrium position in the normal population, so that one is twice as far from that meltdown at two Jefferys.
It is great fun to place people into this system. Of course, each of us may be at a different place on this scale on any given day. But a list of the rating in Jeffreys of selected persons will appear (for a while at least) over there on the right side of this page. Feel free, by comment, to suggest others and their Jeffrey ratings or to take issue with the ratings given. Decisions of the judges are final, and manifestly right.
The Jeffrey is defined as the distance one is at any given time from a Jeffrey-Tambor-in-"And Justice For All"-style meltdown in which one shaves one's head and becomes a saffron-robed Hare Krishna, with one Jeffery being defined as the equilibrium position in the normal population, so that one is twice as far from that meltdown at two Jefferys.
It is great fun to place people into this system. Of course, each of us may be at a different place on this scale on any given day. But a list of the rating in Jeffreys of selected persons will appear (for a while at least) over there on the right side of this page. Feel free, by comment, to suggest others and their Jeffrey ratings or to take issue with the ratings given. Decisions of the judges are final, and manifestly right.
Oh, and by the way - the Jeffrey is copyright of this author, and may only be reproduced with reference to this page. Keep your mitts off, SI!
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Propane and lawsuits
I was just listening to Prof. Garry Watson on CBC Radio very gently trying to explain that it might be a bit early to start talking about how class action lawsuits would proceed relating to the recent Toronto propane explosion.
The whole situation, obviously, is bad. It's tragic for the employee who was (apparently) killed in the explosion, and for the Toronto firefighter who died at the scene, albeit (apparently) of natural causes.
Isn't it amazing it wasn't worse? No other fatalities, no serious injuries, and what would appear to be full coverage by insurance with no resulting rate changes. And we don't yet know and may never know what exactly was the cause.
By the way, it turns out that there might be, oh, 337 propane facilities in the City of Toronto alone. Which arises from our demand for convenience of service - like nineteenth-century railroads, or natural gas piped to our houses, or power generating stations that nobody wants located close to their homes.
On the radio, the gentleman who is gathering signatures for the proposed class action suit said that "it was up to the lawyers" when asked who the defendants were going to be. That kind of sums it up, doesn't it? Since this must be someone's fault, a lawsuit is the obvious way to go, and questions of cause, who might be at fault for that cause, or whether there are in fact any uncompensated damages go by the boards.
The news cycle now is such that this aspect must get thrown in the hopper. It's long been the case that the litigation outlasts the attention to the thing that prompted it - but now I bet that the media will be done with this story before there's even any kind of report that should prompt someone to start thinking about a lawsuit.
Why do we want to rely on private legal remedies when (fairly obviously) the problem, if there is one, is public regulation or the lack of it? For convenience reasons, we ignore both the way facilities like this insinuate themselves everywhere and how (or if) they're regulated and inspected - until something like this happens and the handwringing commences.
The whole situation, obviously, is bad. It's tragic for the employee who was (apparently) killed in the explosion, and for the Toronto firefighter who died at the scene, albeit (apparently) of natural causes.
Isn't it amazing it wasn't worse? No other fatalities, no serious injuries, and what would appear to be full coverage by insurance with no resulting rate changes. And we don't yet know and may never know what exactly was the cause.
By the way, it turns out that there might be, oh, 337 propane facilities in the City of Toronto alone. Which arises from our demand for convenience of service - like nineteenth-century railroads, or natural gas piped to our houses, or power generating stations that nobody wants located close to their homes.
On the radio, the gentleman who is gathering signatures for the proposed class action suit said that "it was up to the lawyers" when asked who the defendants were going to be. That kind of sums it up, doesn't it? Since this must be someone's fault, a lawsuit is the obvious way to go, and questions of cause, who might be at fault for that cause, or whether there are in fact any uncompensated damages go by the boards.
The news cycle now is such that this aspect must get thrown in the hopper. It's long been the case that the litigation outlasts the attention to the thing that prompted it - but now I bet that the media will be done with this story before there's even any kind of report that should prompt someone to start thinking about a lawsuit.
Why do we want to rely on private legal remedies when (fairly obviously) the problem, if there is one, is public regulation or the lack of it? For convenience reasons, we ignore both the way facilities like this insinuate themselves everywhere and how (or if) they're regulated and inspected - until something like this happens and the handwringing commences.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Everything you need to know about derivatives, greed and human behaviour
Just read this article by John Lanchester in the London Review of Books from January. It's excellent reading, and has only gotten more relevant since. Without descending to cliches about hanging together or separately, we're all in deep trouble if the ends of the economic spectrum keep pulling apart - and also if we forget that the "free" in "free market" isn't synonymous with "unconstrained"!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
