President Obama did not attend the massive, high-profile protest in Paris on Sunday following the attacks on magazine publisher Charlie Hebdo. Benjamin Netanyahu (Israel), Mahmoud Abbas (Palestine) Angela Merkel (Germany), Francois Hollande (France), David Cameron (Britain), Matteo Renzi (Italy) and 38 other high-ranking government leaders and officials did.
This is okay. For a number of reasons, it was a good choice. (What is regrettable, however, is the backpedaling on the decision now taking place in the White House.)
Why is U.S. absence okay? Why is it good? All around government leaders were joining together in a common spirit of remembrance and with each step taken in tandem, they galvanized an attitude of 'none shall tear asunder the liberty we are charged with protecting'. The picture of the unbroken line these men and women created could have more diplomatic impact than the last two decades of U.S. foreign policy combined. At the very least, it is an image that will be burned into the minds of attacker and victim alike.
And that's just it. This is Europe's time to take stock. To consider the systems of order (or disorder) that exist within each member country's border and consider the short-and-long term implications of protecting the personal freedoms of its citizens. Personal freedoms that can serve to enlighten and elevate or be hidden behind and maligned. This is Europe's, and Africa's, and apparently Israel's and Palestine's turn to stand together and to communicate apart from the mighty shadow of US involvement. This is another part of the world's opportunity to decide how it feels about the state of things when those things land on its very doorstep.
The U.S. can and should empathize. Americans, especially those living in New York City, know what it is to be terrorized. To be targeted on home soil. To be singled out en masse (oxymoronically) while going about an average day. It's at once incredibly personal and chillingly abstract. It sets into motion a powerful process of dealing, emoting, rationalizing, responding, feeling and renewing that no one can truly understand until they have lived it.
Obama's attendance in Paris on Sunday would not only have created a security nightmare--and potentially turned a peaceful march into a target for even greater violence--it would have been stealing from those directly connected to France a powerful thunder on an otherwise silent day.
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
Monday, May 14, 2012
Farewell, Fair Capital
Sometimes it's hard being a patriot. Especially when the laws of the land in
which one is a denizen have evolved in a manner that treats him no longer as a
productive contributor to society, but as a golden-egg-laying-goose. And then
gets angry when he flies away.
Eduardo Saverin, co-founder of Facebook, just renounced his American citizenship. His spokesperson explains the reasoning "as a financial rather than a tax motive". He is now coming under serious heat for being "ungrateful", "unpatriotic" and most amusingly, "unlikeable". (Does one "un-like" him on Facebook, we wonder?)
The numbers: Saverin's stake in Facebook is 4%. If the optimistic assessors of Facebook's IPO capitalization are correct, that is worth $3.84 billion. (Ask Bloomberg.com.)
There are several aspects of this development that we think deserve clarification and pontification:
1. Saverin was born in Brazil, not America. Yes, he did have American citizenship. No, we are not saying that a foreign-born, naturalized citizen cannot have warm fuzzies about his or her new country. But we will suggest that his ability to prosper professionally may eclipse his concern about the crest on the cover of his passport.
2. Does occupying space in a country, and becoming wealthy while doing so, automatically justify that country's complete ownership of a portion of that wealth, without warranting the slightest protest?
Saverin is savvy. Having established where his priorities likely lie in #1, we will now be so bold as to suggest that he feels entitled to the freedom of choice exhibited by billions of people every day, when they choose Tide over All, based on cost, usage, and how much they like the smell. It is perfectly legal for him to be a discerning shopper.
Why would Saverin remain in a situation that limits his ability to invest in international outfits he finds compelling, and takes more of what he has earned than someone else will in another land?
The US tax system regulatory framework places the burden of reporting the movement of capital in US citizens' accounts on the foreign financial institution that houses them. (Ask wikipedia.org about Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA)). This represents a lot of expensive paperwork, making Americans, again, pains-in-the-you-know-what. (Sigh.)
Singapore, Saverin's new domain of choice, also has no capital gains tax. You can bet that dollar that you are about to spend on Facebook stock that that will represent enormous savings over America's 15% (long term) going rate.
3. CBSNews.com will attest to the fact that "many say [he] owes his good fortune to his very American Harvard education and the California-fueled Internet boom". So . . . circumstances really are everything? Saverin did not have to work all that hard, persevere, prove himself, and think outside of the box, nearly getting crushed in the process? He just had to show up, and America did the rest?
This is part devil's advocacy, part melodrama, but the question must be posed: to what extent can a country, a government, a tax system, or an academic institution claim that it is the reason for an individual's world-changing success?
Relevanti is 100% American, and not afraid to say it. But we refuse to stand by and see someone trashed for deciding that his money, his interests and his well-being were better served elsewhere. This is a cautionary tale for the regulators and anyone who can spare a thought for what Saverin's move represents on a societal level : good ideas and good people must be nurtured, not exploited, or choked. Or they will, indeed, leave.
Eduardo Saverin, co-founder of Facebook, just renounced his American citizenship. His spokesperson explains the reasoning "as a financial rather than a tax motive". He is now coming under serious heat for being "ungrateful", "unpatriotic" and most amusingly, "unlikeable". (Does one "un-like" him on Facebook, we wonder?)
The numbers: Saverin's stake in Facebook is 4%. If the optimistic assessors of Facebook's IPO capitalization are correct, that is worth $3.84 billion. (Ask Bloomberg.com.)
There are several aspects of this development that we think deserve clarification and pontification:
1. Saverin was born in Brazil, not America. Yes, he did have American citizenship. No, we are not saying that a foreign-born, naturalized citizen cannot have warm fuzzies about his or her new country. But we will suggest that his ability to prosper professionally may eclipse his concern about the crest on the cover of his passport.
2. Does occupying space in a country, and becoming wealthy while doing so, automatically justify that country's complete ownership of a portion of that wealth, without warranting the slightest protest?
Saverin is savvy. Having established where his priorities likely lie in #1, we will now be so bold as to suggest that he feels entitled to the freedom of choice exhibited by billions of people every day, when they choose Tide over All, based on cost, usage, and how much they like the smell. It is perfectly legal for him to be a discerning shopper.
Why would Saverin remain in a situation that limits his ability to invest in international outfits he finds compelling, and takes more of what he has earned than someone else will in another land?
The US tax system regulatory framework places the burden of reporting the movement of capital in US citizens' accounts on the foreign financial institution that houses them. (Ask wikipedia.org about Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA)). This represents a lot of expensive paperwork, making Americans, again, pains-in-the-you-know-what. (Sigh.)
Singapore, Saverin's new domain of choice, also has no capital gains tax. You can bet that dollar that you are about to spend on Facebook stock that that will represent enormous savings over America's 15% (long term) going rate.
3. CBSNews.com will attest to the fact that "many say [he] owes his good fortune to his very American Harvard education and the California-fueled Internet boom". So . . . circumstances really are everything? Saverin did not have to work all that hard, persevere, prove himself, and think outside of the box, nearly getting crushed in the process? He just had to show up, and America did the rest?
This is part devil's advocacy, part melodrama, but the question must be posed: to what extent can a country, a government, a tax system, or an academic institution claim that it is the reason for an individual's world-changing success?
Relevanti is 100% American, and not afraid to say it. But we refuse to stand by and see someone trashed for deciding that his money, his interests and his well-being were better served elsewhere. This is a cautionary tale for the regulators and anyone who can spare a thought for what Saverin's move represents on a societal level : good ideas and good people must be nurtured, not exploited, or choked. Or they will, indeed, leave.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
We Need to Talk About Kentucky's Farmer
Has your boss ever asked you to field dress a deer on company time? (Assuming your job is NOT in fact, to field dress deer.)
And if he did, it can hardly be considered a crime, can it? What about when you salary comes directly out of the pockets of taxpayers in your state (read: your next door neighbors)?
The litany of the misconduct exhibited by Richie Farmer, former commissioner of agriculture in Kentucky, failed candidate for the office lieutenant governor, and, perhaps, most notably, a member of the UK Unforgettables (it's a college basketball thing) goes on.
Hiring a girlfriend who does no work. Having employees mow his lawn. Accepting gifts of sweatpants and basketball courts installed at his home. Shooting deer from his government-issue vehicle. There isn't enough space here to list them all, so we shall cut to the chase: is it right that we let people off the hook from being good people just because they played some decent ball once?
Richie Farmer is a basketball legend in Kentucky. He's a good ol' boy. And he's not a bad person. He hasn't committed (to our knowledge) any particularly heinous crimes, like hiring a hit man or voting for socialized health care (kidding). But he is a thief.
Though relatively innocuous, his exploits represent theft of taxpayer dollars in a time where dollars are very precious. And even worse than the money, he's taking something else from us that's even more dear: our belief in our heroes to do the right thing. Our faith in our politicians to govern within the law, and to place their constituents above themselves.
Richie Farmer is as grassroots as you get . . . and he's poisoned that grass.
And if he did, it can hardly be considered a crime, can it? What about when you salary comes directly out of the pockets of taxpayers in your state (read: your next door neighbors)?
The litany of the misconduct exhibited by Richie Farmer, former commissioner of agriculture in Kentucky, failed candidate for the office lieutenant governor, and, perhaps, most notably, a member of the UK Unforgettables (it's a college basketball thing) goes on.
Hiring a girlfriend who does no work. Having employees mow his lawn. Accepting gifts of sweatpants and basketball courts installed at his home. Shooting deer from his government-issue vehicle. There isn't enough space here to list them all, so we shall cut to the chase: is it right that we let people off the hook from being good people just because they played some decent ball once?
Richie Farmer is a basketball legend in Kentucky. He's a good ol' boy. And he's not a bad person. He hasn't committed (to our knowledge) any particularly heinous crimes, like hiring a hit man or voting for socialized health care (kidding). But he is a thief.
Though relatively innocuous, his exploits represent theft of taxpayer dollars in a time where dollars are very precious. And even worse than the money, he's taking something else from us that's even more dear: our belief in our heroes to do the right thing. Our faith in our politicians to govern within the law, and to place their constituents above themselves.
Richie Farmer is as grassroots as you get . . . and he's poisoned that grass.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Monkey Off Their Back: Capitals Progress in Stanley Cup Playoffs
Pitted against the second seeded Boston Bruins in a brutal first round of the Stanley Cup Playoffs, the Washington Capitals clawed their way to a vital reckoning last night at the TD Garden.
They. Can. Win.
In. The. Seventh. Game.
The 'choke' that has become almost a given has evaporated. Yes, it's early days, but for this hockey club, those early days are the most defining.
Braden Holtby, a veritable greenhorn by NHL standards, delivered game in and game out, exhibiting that single most important trait a goal tender can possess: equanimity. It takes a certain type of spirit to watch one puck hit your net, and be able to steel yourself against the next onslaught, and the next without letting any more through.
All seventeen feet and three hundred pounds of Zdeno Chara, post-Soviet-human-tank-experiment-gone-slightly-awry couldn't slow down the Caps.
They have a defensive game. (Really, this time.) They have a goalie with an excellent glove save. And they've shaken the monkey of ill-begotten defeat from their back.
They're back.
They. Can. Win.
In. The. Seventh. Game.
The 'choke' that has become almost a given has evaporated. Yes, it's early days, but for this hockey club, those early days are the most defining.
Braden Holtby, a veritable greenhorn by NHL standards, delivered game in and game out, exhibiting that single most important trait a goal tender can possess: equanimity. It takes a certain type of spirit to watch one puck hit your net, and be able to steel yourself against the next onslaught, and the next without letting any more through.
All seventeen feet and three hundred pounds of Zdeno Chara, post-Soviet-human-tank-experiment-gone-slightly-awry couldn't slow down the Caps.
They have a defensive game. (Really, this time.) They have a goalie with an excellent glove save. And they've shaken the monkey of ill-begotten defeat from their back.
They're back.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
TARP Talk: Short Attention Spans and Liars
Admit it. You haven't thought about TARP in months, if not years.
Me neither. Why would remind ourselves of such a painful blight on America's banking resume? Or the equally painful kick-in-the-back-of-our-taxpayer-pants that accompanied it?
Four years ago, the federal government made the consequences of years of risking banking (for the love of God, would you loan some of these people YOUR money) the fault of you, dear American taxpayer, because some entity that you likely had little or nothing to do with was going bankrupt. Old news, right?
Well, not if you care about the facts being right for posterity (or just tomorrow's headlines).
The $700 billion bank bailout is currently referred to by Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geitner as an "investment" that has delivered "a significant profit for taxpayers."
Seriously. Seriously?!
First, there is something about the semantics of investment that suggests to me a voluntary aspect of the act of putting money into something offering the possibility of a return. Investment by fiat, rings controversial.
Second, there is NO possibility of return. Nada. None. Zilch.
I've borrowed the numbers from Aaron Task (ask Yahoo! Finance, The Daily Ticker) and applied third grade mathematics to support my bold statement:
The Congressional Budget Office estimates TARP will ultimately cost $34 billion, based on future expected payments. But Romero notes banks and financial institutions still owe $118.5 billion in TARP funds. Her estimate includes the government's ongoing stakes in companies like Ally Financial, AIG and General Motors, as well as $4.2 billion Treasury had written off and realized losses of $9.8 billion "that taxpayers will never get back."
The 'Romero' referred to is Christy Romero, the new special inspector general of TARP and persona non grata for telling things like they are.
For the very same reason that a barrel of apples consumed on one day cannot be made whole again by a half-bucket of regurgitated apple sauce a delivered a few years down the road, TARP can hardly be considered a profitable venture.
And let's foray quickly into the "what if?" arena so popularized by this meltdown: TARP reinforced poor business practices that will prove doubly cataclysmic the next time the reaper comes calling. Again to borrow a Task statistic: "the five-largest U.S. banks now control 52% of the industry's assets." How could they possibly learn from a lesson that was never actually taught to them?
If only the government could take a page from the good parents of wayward teenagers.
It's ugly. Don't let them try to make it prettier by lying to you about it.
Me neither. Why would remind ourselves of such a painful blight on America's banking resume? Or the equally painful kick-in-the-back-of-our-taxpayer-pants that accompanied it?
Four years ago, the federal government made the consequences of years of risking banking (for the love of God, would you loan some of these people YOUR money) the fault of you, dear American taxpayer, because some entity that you likely had little or nothing to do with was going bankrupt. Old news, right?
Well, not if you care about the facts being right for posterity (or just tomorrow's headlines).
The $700 billion bank bailout is currently referred to by Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geitner as an "investment" that has delivered "a significant profit for taxpayers."
Seriously. Seriously?!
First, there is something about the semantics of investment that suggests to me a voluntary aspect of the act of putting money into something offering the possibility of a return. Investment by fiat, rings controversial.
Second, there is NO possibility of return. Nada. None. Zilch.
I've borrowed the numbers from Aaron Task (ask Yahoo! Finance, The Daily Ticker) and applied third grade mathematics to support my bold statement:
The Congressional Budget Office estimates TARP will ultimately cost $34 billion, based on future expected payments. But Romero notes banks and financial institutions still owe $118.5 billion in TARP funds. Her estimate includes the government's ongoing stakes in companies like Ally Financial, AIG and General Motors, as well as $4.2 billion Treasury had written off and realized losses of $9.8 billion "that taxpayers will never get back."
The 'Romero' referred to is Christy Romero, the new special inspector general of TARP and persona non grata for telling things like they are.
For the very same reason that a barrel of apples consumed on one day cannot be made whole again by a half-bucket of regurgitated apple sauce a delivered a few years down the road, TARP can hardly be considered a profitable venture.
And let's foray quickly into the "what if?" arena so popularized by this meltdown: TARP reinforced poor business practices that will prove doubly cataclysmic the next time the reaper comes calling. Again to borrow a Task statistic: "the five-largest U.S. banks now control 52% of the industry's assets." How could they possibly learn from a lesson that was never actually taught to them?
If only the government could take a page from the good parents of wayward teenagers.
It's ugly. Don't let them try to make it prettier by lying to you about it.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
The Cure for Overpopulation: Facebook
"57% of people talk more online than they do in real life."
This statistic is about a year old (ask onlineschools.org) but it is new to me, and terrifyingly, probably even higher now. The implications have me reeling. What is going to happen to us if eventually, we stop talking in person all together?
I have this picture in mind of a 15 year old boy who wants to ask out a girl at school, but is so unpractised in actual human contact and communication, that he doesn't know what to say. She might not even recognize his attraction in the way that one does, because she's never had meaningful social interaction with anyone other than her family.
So he sends her a Facebook message. And she answers. How long does it take before they actually get up the nerve to meet in person?
And then there's the sex. (Not to jump ahead, but this is a blog post (believe me, I appreciate the irony here) and I've got to keep it short.)
Do the hormones still recognize their cue? Or will Facebook and its counterparts, in less than a quarter of a century, have us revert to some sort of medieval, celibate age where all eye contact and firm handshakes have died; where online bullying has replaced the playground scuffle, and love has been replaced with . . . "like."
This statistic is about a year old (ask onlineschools.org) but it is new to me, and terrifyingly, probably even higher now. The implications have me reeling. What is going to happen to us if eventually, we stop talking in person all together?
I have this picture in mind of a 15 year old boy who wants to ask out a girl at school, but is so unpractised in actual human contact and communication, that he doesn't know what to say. She might not even recognize his attraction in the way that one does, because she's never had meaningful social interaction with anyone other than her family.
So he sends her a Facebook message. And she answers. How long does it take before they actually get up the nerve to meet in person?
And then there's the sex. (Not to jump ahead, but this is a blog post (believe me, I appreciate the irony here) and I've got to keep it short.)
Do the hormones still recognize their cue? Or will Facebook and its counterparts, in less than a quarter of a century, have us revert to some sort of medieval, celibate age where all eye contact and firm handshakes have died; where online bullying has replaced the playground scuffle, and love has been replaced with . . . "like."
Monday, April 23, 2012
Can't Get No (Job) Satisfaction
With one in two college kids not able to find work (along with a whole Ark's worth of other people) any sort of complaint about a job that one DOES have is now punishable by barbecuing, feathering, death and dismemberment. In that order. People have to eat, after all.
The depressing implications for the stressed-out, overworked and underpaid minority trying to hold down the fort are going unnoticed. In other countries, in other cultures, that would make sense. Fair and just, absolutely not, but understandable, yes.
America, though, has always been the gold standard. Doors, windows and skyscrapers of opportunity have been promised to us since birth. But as the oasis of American employment dries up and the sweltering heat and thirst for opportunity make us desperate for something, anything, the standard is slipping. Organizations with Stalinist inclinations are reveling with their upper hand held aloft. After all, what person in their right mind would quit in an economy like this? Raise, schmaise. You're lucky if you don't get laid off.
The answer isn't to form a union and take every productive industry for every penny it's worth. Just as the answer isn't to sit back, take relentless schedules, hours and puny salaries as a given. If we let the standard fall too low, the unemployed are going to remain so, with the badly employed soon joining them. Until we get really hungry. And then it's going to get ugly.
Take good care of your good people. They are crucial to keep the oars in the water until relief comes aboard.
The depressing implications for the stressed-out, overworked and underpaid minority trying to hold down the fort are going unnoticed. In other countries, in other cultures, that would make sense. Fair and just, absolutely not, but understandable, yes.
America, though, has always been the gold standard. Doors, windows and skyscrapers of opportunity have been promised to us since birth. But as the oasis of American employment dries up and the sweltering heat and thirst for opportunity make us desperate for something, anything, the standard is slipping. Organizations with Stalinist inclinations are reveling with their upper hand held aloft. After all, what person in their right mind would quit in an economy like this? Raise, schmaise. You're lucky if you don't get laid off.
The answer isn't to form a union and take every productive industry for every penny it's worth. Just as the answer isn't to sit back, take relentless schedules, hours and puny salaries as a given. If we let the standard fall too low, the unemployed are going to remain so, with the badly employed soon joining them. Until we get really hungry. And then it's going to get ugly.
Take good care of your good people. They are crucial to keep the oars in the water until relief comes aboard.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)