I'm going to switch it up a little and tell you about a concert of Armin Van Buuren that I attended in Chicago. I was looking forward to the evening for several months, I was heavily disappointed by circumstances beyond my control.
While the Armin wanna-be was warming up the crowd, my wallet misteriously "disappeared" from within my coat pocket. Of course, when this happened at the start of the evening, my night was severly dampened, as well as made $150 more expensive than I would have preferred. The atmosphere was great, everyone seemed really excited when Armin took over the DJ booth, yet a few things could have been improved. The music volume was excessive to say the least and was possibly controlled by a deaf person. Yes, I understand that concerts have loud music, but I should at least be able to hear my own voice! Also I would have really liked to avoid the two days of constant ringing in my ears that were to follow that memorable night.
Vision (the club that hosted the concert), was packed, which unfortunetly meant that I got to know and smell the crowd a lot more than I would have liked. Another major gripe was the smoking in the bathroom, although Chicago has passed a non-smoking ordinance the laws of the state apparently do not apply to Vision, judging by the smoke cloud in the men's bathroom that most certaintly cut my life expectancy by several weeks.
Overall I'm not sure how much of my displeasure was brought out by the "loss" of my wallet, but I do believe the concert could have been better. That being said, Armin is the best DJ in the world.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
AIG!!! AIG!!! AIG!!!
There has been much controversy over the past few weeks about the AIG bonuses. If I didn't know any better I would have thought that solving the bonus "fiasco" is somehow more important than tackling our troubled economy. I mean seriously is it productive for our politicians to spend time pinpointing who is at fault for $160M in bonuses delivered to a bailed out company, or should they inquire why the company required billions upon billions of dollars of bailout money?
It's like giving a homeless person a $100 to get some food and then getting pissed off when he buys chewing gum for a quarter. It just doesn't make sense (Afterall giving money to the homeless is silly, since it discourages them from working and they are going to spend the money on drugs anyway). Not to mention the fact that everyone is way too quick to finger point at the big bad corporate execs receiving their undeserved bonuses.
First off, unless someone does a study of each bonus recipient and performs their performance evaluation, they don't know if a specific individual is responsible for AIG downturn. No one can make blanket statements that all AIG executives were active in bringing down the insurance giant.
Secondly, companies use bonuses as a form of compensation in order to attract the top talent. If the government wants a failing company to become even more incompetent, it should just start regulating compensation and hiring policies. It's a well known fact that nothing attracts top talent more than the government oversight, regulation and low levels of compensation, just look at our federal government employees.
Thirdly, the bonuses were part of the employment contract of these individuals, and taking away their compensation isn't exactly just. Top executives routinely receive most of their compensation through bonuses, so taking away their bonuses is taking away the compensation that AIG employees depend on.
But if the government really wants to get its $160M back, I have a solution. I propose that members of Congress start looking within themselves for cost saving measures. Some members of Congress, such as Nancy Pelosi, who is a multimillionaire and the wealthiest member of Congress still receive six digit gov't paychecks and benefits. If we take away all forms of compensation and benefits from nationally elected officials I'm sure we can save around $160M. Our Congressmen, Senators, and Presidents should not be motivated by compensation to run for office, and my guess is very few of them are. They are more likely to be tempted by "other" forms of compensation that they receive while in office, which eclipse their meager federal salary and benefits. I also think that stripping Members of Congress of compensation, would follow the same logic used to strip AIG executives of their bonuses. AIG executives failed AIG, and our Congress failed the American people, so why should our Congress deserve compensation?
It's like giving a homeless person a $100 to get some food and then getting pissed off when he buys chewing gum for a quarter. It just doesn't make sense (Afterall giving money to the homeless is silly, since it discourages them from working and they are going to spend the money on drugs anyway). Not to mention the fact that everyone is way too quick to finger point at the big bad corporate execs receiving their undeserved bonuses.
First off, unless someone does a study of each bonus recipient and performs their performance evaluation, they don't know if a specific individual is responsible for AIG downturn. No one can make blanket statements that all AIG executives were active in bringing down the insurance giant.
Secondly, companies use bonuses as a form of compensation in order to attract the top talent. If the government wants a failing company to become even more incompetent, it should just start regulating compensation and hiring policies. It's a well known fact that nothing attracts top talent more than the government oversight, regulation and low levels of compensation, just look at our federal government employees.
Thirdly, the bonuses were part of the employment contract of these individuals, and taking away their compensation isn't exactly just. Top executives routinely receive most of their compensation through bonuses, so taking away their bonuses is taking away the compensation that AIG employees depend on.
But if the government really wants to get its $160M back, I have a solution. I propose that members of Congress start looking within themselves for cost saving measures. Some members of Congress, such as Nancy Pelosi, who is a multimillionaire and the wealthiest member of Congress still receive six digit gov't paychecks and benefits. If we take away all forms of compensation and benefits from nationally elected officials I'm sure we can save around $160M. Our Congressmen, Senators, and Presidents should not be motivated by compensation to run for office, and my guess is very few of them are. They are more likely to be tempted by "other" forms of compensation that they receive while in office, which eclipse their meager federal salary and benefits. I also think that stripping Members of Congress of compensation, would follow the same logic used to strip AIG executives of their bonuses. AIG executives failed AIG, and our Congress failed the American people, so why should our Congress deserve compensation?
Sunday, March 15, 2009
The birth of Hamasastan
So its been a while since my last entry, and I realize I need to stay more consistent with my posts, but here I go.
I don't mean to gloat but I just want to point out that I pretty much nailed the analysis and the outcome of Israel's endeveour into the armpit of the world. Although Israel's casualty toll was not as high as I anticipated (thankfully!) the benefits of Israel's incursion are still unclear. It is true that currently fewer rockets are flying towards Israel from the world's largest and most densely populated sewer, but I am saddened to say that this is a temporary occurance. Within hours of Israel's withdrawl from Gaza, tunnels were being rebuilt on the Egyptian border and weapons smuggling resumed. At the end of the day, Israel spent vast resources and suffered a further tarnishing of its image in order to successefully empowered Hamas, who are now in charge of distributing international aid. Even though some organizations are trying to bypass Hamas this task is close to impossible.
On a positive note Lieberman happens to agree with my resolution of the conflict, and I am exploring potential legal remedies for his blatant plagarism of my political platform.
I don't mean to gloat but I just want to point out that I pretty much nailed the analysis and the outcome of Israel's endeveour into the armpit of the world. Although Israel's casualty toll was not as high as I anticipated (thankfully!) the benefits of Israel's incursion are still unclear. It is true that currently fewer rockets are flying towards Israel from the world's largest and most densely populated sewer, but I am saddened to say that this is a temporary occurance. Within hours of Israel's withdrawl from Gaza, tunnels were being rebuilt on the Egyptian border and weapons smuggling resumed. At the end of the day, Israel spent vast resources and suffered a further tarnishing of its image in order to successefully empowered Hamas, who are now in charge of distributing international aid. Even though some organizations are trying to bypass Hamas this task is close to impossible.
On a positive note Lieberman happens to agree with my resolution of the conflict, and I am exploring potential legal remedies for his blatant plagarism of my political platform.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)