Numbers without Meaning

Numbers without Meaning

I’ve been avoiding the furor over bailout spending and executive payouts for 2 reasons, previous coverage and exhaustion.  After dedicating much of this space to TARP earlier in the year, I was pleased to see the media push the issue into the spotlight.  The story is now ubiquitous, cavernous, incessant, and, despite my contempt for corruption, I’ve grown weary.  But the story below has blown my mind and made the wound fresh again.

Apparently Goldman Sachs is planning to return its TARP funds by mid-April.  The move is not the result of any newfound stability within the operation.  Instead, it is a means to avoid public scorn for being a corrupt, inept, and disorganized institution completely out of step with reality.  Rather than acknowledge nationwide frustration with a company that saw its net-worth plummet into oblivion while at the same time setting a record for executive compensation, Goldman Sachs hopes to obscure itself from its role in sinking the country by giving back the $10 billion in TARP funds that were absolutely essential for their survival just a few months ago.  By giving the money back, the bank hopes to escape from the public relations disaster.  And they are not alone, JP Morgan Chase, who plan to spend $138 million on two new corporate jets and a luxury airport hangar, also plan to return their TARP funds to the government.  Once they do, they’ll go ahead and finish their air travel upgrade, free of any public dissention.  After all, Jaime Dimon, JP Morgan’s CEO was quoted just two weeks ago saying, “When I hear the constant vilification of corporate America I personally don’t understand it.” Clearly.

Of course you don’t, Jaime, neither do any of your colleagues.  What is more troubling is that none of you are willing to understand it.  The bailout was intended to keep the foundations of our economy intact by keeping your businesses alive. Now, more than ever, it is clear you should have been allowed to fail (that would have been better for you, as then your bonuses never would have been under the threat of congressional rescission).  You refuse to learn from your mistakes and develop better, more efficient business models.  You are intent on running everything straight into the ground so long as you can continue to line your overstuffed pockets.  You claim that bonuses are essential to retain your top talent. Your companies have all devalued and eroded the global economy, you don’t have any talent.  You did not require government funding, you just got in line for free money that the government never should have offered.  But you took it, saying it was necessary.  Now, under pressure for inept practices, you are eager to return it, despite no considerable gains in your performance. You have no credibility, no integrity, and deserve no respect.  Oblivious to the frustration of millions, whose lives are stalled and even destroyed by your greed; continue on in your opulent, wayward, stupor.  You are worthless.

Goldman Sachs to Return TARP Funds by Mid-April:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aW2jw0bHcg3s&refer=home

JP Morgan Chase Spending Millions on New Jets and Luxury Private Airport Hangar

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/WallStreet/story?id=7146474&page=1

Chase Will Repay TARP Funds Before Making Jet Purchase:

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/jpmorgan-to-proceed-with-new-jets-and-hangar/?hp

Expanding Out By Dumbing Down

Expanding Out By Dumbing Down

NBC Universal is changing the name of its SciFi Channel to SyFy based on a myriad of considerations including everything but proper use of the English language.  In order to offer a “broader range of content,” and have trademark control of the brand, NBC Universal will make it easier for people to forget the proper origins of its (granted, abbreviated) name.  Just as doughnuts became donuts and drive throughs became drive thrus, sci-fi will only bear a scant trace of its original foundations, science and fiction. Soon enough, SyFy will enter the lexicon of blogs, texting, and likely find its own dictionary entry.  Make no mistake, this is entirely due to corporate policy, i.e. greed; the need for a brand to be “own-able, portable, extendable.”  And I have to say that I agree that it makes perfect business sense, you should be able to control your own brand.  But I have a problem with the collateral result of empowering a bunch of idiots who will have even further difficulty being able to spell properly.

I am not a fan of text-speak, questions beginning with contractions, or dumbed down abbreviations.  Moreover, I don’t find corporate creations legitimate additions to the language.  You will not ever see me describe something as gr8 when it is, in fact, great. Language is beautiful and sacred.  It is organic and evolving.  Lexicon changes based on oral expression, and further feed written language.  This is why we, mercifully for the sake of time, no longer express ourselves like Geoffrey Chaucer.  Just as “on the morrow” is replaced by the more direct “tomorrow”, slang terms like “trainspotting” and “hook-up” rightfully find their space in official dictionaries.  But corporate constructs and laziness do not represent linguistic evolution.  They serve to further devolve the language.  Though the trend will continue and be inconsequential to most, I will be happy to voice my opposition.

http://www.reuters.com/article/televisionNews/idUSTRE52F34W20090316

JCVD

JCVD

http://www.jcvd-themovie.com/
This is my favorite film in recent memory.  No, it is not the technical marvel that gains critical attention, or the high profile film that garners award mention, but this to me is the rawest, most probing, and purest entertainments I have seen in quite some time.  Currently, The Wrestler and its star Mickey Rourke are getting showered with acclaim for the “true to life” portrayal of a fallen star in search of redemption.  JCVD dwarfs that film.  The Wrestler is quite good, but its power lies almost entirely in the hands of Mickey Rourke’s performance and the title character, which has many shared circumstances to Rourke’s experience; unfortunately the rest of the film’s contrivance nearly undermines the buoyancy of Rourke’s portrayal.  But where JCVD exceeds that accomplishment is in asking the actor, Jean Claude Van Damme, to portray himself.  There is no character or chosen genre to hide behind.  The story is fictional, yes.  But, after two viewings, I am amazed by the wrenching emotion of a fictional situation starring a known personality.  JCVD succeeds in humanizing an action star, a fallen action star that has become to many a punchline.  On top of that, it is drenched in cinematic style.  The film is an homage to some of cinema’s greatest works: Sunset Boulevard, The Battle of Algiers, and certainly Dog Day Afternoon.  No, this film does not capture the quality of those aforementioned.  Nevertheless, this film is a revelation. A true original. This is a B-movie, and it is entirely self-aware.  I realize I have heaped praise that may distort your view and I beg your pardon.  But I am not doing it for a headline nor for publicity.  I am doing it to share the joy and excitement this film brought to me.  I love the movies, and I am so disillusioned by the dispassion and commercialism instilled by film-marketing that I spend less and less time at the movies, and even less time watching films at home.  It is a phenomenon that saddens me, yet I feel it sharpens my appreciation.  These days I am elated by simply being able to enjoy a movie, an experience that was at one time nearly quotidien to me.  It is harder and harder for me to feel that joy, yet once found the pleasure is in greater measure.  JCVD is a terrific film.  Do not see it as a punchline.  I watched it with a sold out crowd on a 15 degree February evening.  The crowd was energized, demonstrative, engaged, and vocal.  When is the last time you experienced that at the movies?  When is the last time you went to the movies?

The Call For Transparency

The Call For Transparency

The public demand for transparency concerning bailout funds is mounting.  On Monday, Fox News filed suit against the Fed for its refusal to declare details regarding the Troubled Asset Relief Program, citing a violation of the Freedom of Information Act.  This is a bold and exemplary move.  The impetus for the case comes from a November request of the FED by Fox Business News for full disclosure on the source, recipients, and use of TARP funding.  The FED denied the request, and now Fox News is taking them to court on behalf of our public right to know how our money is being spent.  (Read story, http://uk.reuters.com/article/marketsNewsUS/idUKN1235009220090112)

Further insistence is brought today by The Huffington Post, where Thomas B. Edsall highlights the duplicity of statements that were made at the time TARP funding was awarded and the actions we have witnessed.  (Read story, (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/08/the-end-of-bailout-transp_n_156472.html)  As Edsall states in his piece, this story is not taking center stage on our media outlets.  Certainly, in consideration of the multiple entries in this space on the same topic, I agree. 

Again, without a public demand for accountability, our country will only sink further into the oblivion caused by corporate duplicity and hubris.  The fact that two seemingly disparate media outlets, Fox and Huffington, are rallying for the same cause is a triumph.  This is not a partisan issue, it is a national issue.  Beyond that, it is not limited to the bailout, it is an example of the ethical chaos that has caused our financial devastation. This is our money, we are entitled to accountability.  The architects of the bill said so themselves.