The Goat Pen

Posted without comment

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... reinsurers

I'm staying away from Milford for the time being.

That stuff has been going on at least as long as I have been in the profession, and it will continue. Just like big banks, carried interest, and lack of criminal charges will continue. As long as the fed and their festering breeding grounds at Goldman Sachs continue to hold Presidents by the nads, things won't change.

Whew

sardis wrote:That stuff has been going on at least as long as I have been in the profession, and it will continue. Just like big banks, carried interest, and lack of criminal charges will continue. As long as the fed and their festering breeding grounds at Goldman Sachs continue to hold Presidents by the nads, things won't change.

Agreed.

Now that Republican senator Rob Portman's son has come out to him, he supports gay marriage. This makes him the first Republican senator to hold that position. That's great, right? Progress is progress no matter where it happens or who makes it. Portman may have voted for a federal amendment banning gay marriage and a bill banning gay adoption, but that's the past. People, even conservative politicians, are allowed to evolve, and we should welcome them into the fold when they do, because there is strength in numbers. That's the essential truth of this matter. But boy is it hard to feel that way.

Meaning, my initial reaction to this news was anger. Not anger in a terribly aggressive way, more like a bitter sense of having had a suspicion confirmed. The root of this kind of ideological bigotry — people who work to legislate against gay rights, against women's access to fundamental healthcare, against measures that help the poor — is a fundamental lack of compassion, an inability to view something that feels faraway from one's own experience as anything but strange and alien and therefore off-putting or, most callously, as frivolous. People like Portman stridently work against other people's interests until a crucial moment, both shaming and enlightening, when it becomes their interest too. It's good that they ultimately come around on whatever the issue is — "Programs helping the poor are good because I lost all my money." "My teenage daughter is pregnant and in no way prepared to have a baby." — but does it erase the fact of their larger lack of compassion? I'm not sure it does.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics ... ned/63166/

"HOLY SHIT, the SEC just hit SAC Capital with a $600M fine."

Cohen can afford it...

"It's good that they ultimately come around to whatever the issue is — "Programs helping the poor are good because I lost all my money." "My teenage daughter is pregnant and in no way prepared to have a baby." — but does it erase the fact of their larger lack of compassion? I'm not sure it does."

Of course, you could say the same thing about Gabby Gifford and her hubby's new found passion for gun control...

hedge wrote:"It's good that they ultimately come around to whatever the issue is — "Programs helping the poor are good because I lost all my money." "My teenage daughter is pregnant and in no way prepared to have a baby." — but does it erase the fact of their larger lack of compassion? I'm not sure it does."

Of course, you could say the same thing about Gabby Gifford and her hubby's new found passion for gun control...

that is based on a belief however that our government must do more to show compassion (compassion defined as making laws and spending money) toward its citizens when its not the role of the government to do so.

Instead of a gay marriage law, why is there any law about marriage to begin with? Instead of collecting taxes that are intended to be distributed to the poor, why just *not* collect the taxes at all and rely on the good graces of mankind to be generous? While that may sound harsh, think about every hospital, college, library, museum, national park - and I bet you'll find that their beginnings was not funded by the federal government but by a wealthy philanthropist. Its only when government gets involved does the cost of administering and executing these acts becomes prohibitive and forced - housing,education, healthcare - all increased in price, due in no small part to our government dumping money into them. Then housing blows up to where millions of Americans lose their home by the bubble created. A double whammy - make housing accessible - but not affordable to all - then pull the rug out from under them by crashing the economy with the bubble you created. Families on the street because at its root, some politician felt an underrepresented segment of society had a right to buy housing just like anyone else.

Is it better to have health care that costs $100K per surgery subsidized by the government or $10K paid for by Americans running charities? a $300K house at 4% interest or $100K at 9%? A college education that costs $15K with students working or $80K with student loans?

And in return, the government influence in spending and how it affects the lives of daily Americans does give them a fallback position - a national minimum wage that allows them to work full time and still be eligible for government assistance because if they are married, if they do support people that need healthcare, if they are going to school, if they are trying to buy a home - they are considered our nations poorest.

Government compassion comes at a cost that the Average American can't afford - and consequently , it may be a very good reason why so many now need it.

another angle of this - is that Rob Portman, and to some extent Gabby Gifford, aren't acting on compassion, they are acting on self interest.

As a representative of the people, why should anyone give 2 shits about what Rob Portman personally thinks about gay marriage? Rob Portman lives about 4 miles from me in Terrace Park, Ohio- a RINO populated Stepford Wives neighborhood where soccer mom's don't drive mini vans, they buy two Lexus SUV"s instead.

They are about as pro-gay marriage as my dog is to covered cat litter boxes.

My point being that Rob Portman should represent the will of the people that elected him - and not base his views on the new discovered fact his son is gay. People had gay sons before you were elected, and if you'd had done your job as a father and made your kid run laps every time he fucked up, you wouldn't have this adult son with sugar in his pocket now (no I don't think you can change someone who is gay - just a joke)

The same with Gabby Gifford - you were elected because you were a Blue Dog Democrat - you protest voted Nancy Pelosi, you voted against the bailout of General Motors - you did these things because that is what it takes to be a Democrat elected in your district. People were getting shot in the head before you were elected. They were getting shot in the head when you took your initial pro 2A stance.

Do people have a right to change their minds? sure. Do elected officials have a right to inject their personal views ahead of the people that put them in office? Well, Rob Portmans re-election will answer that question. (and don't confuse that stance with mine - I think Rob Portmans stance on gay marriage should be that he doesn't have one on any marriage, but it wasn't my voting block that got him elected)

Terrace Park ain't that bad. There's a bunch of horny milfs over there.

yea its nice - not as nice as Mariemont but probably because they have us Milford rednecks weighing them down.

Heh.

I don't know if the Norks have this camouflage thing figured out yet...

Yeah, they're missing the Kermit masks.

For an understanding of mortality rates and disease research with respect to government involvement versus without it, just look at statistics prior to roughly 1910, or so.

For an understanding on the hunger statistics without government involvement versus with, check the numbers pre 1982 (when Nixon's anti-poverty and anti-hunger initiatives were in place) versus post (when Reagan struck many of them down and the proliferation of private, charitable food banks and shelters were in place.

Government sometimes works.

Bklyn wrote:For an understanding of mortality rates and disease research with respect to government involvement versus without it, just look at statistics prior to roughly 1910, or so.

For an understanding on the hunger statistics without government involvement versus with, check the numbers pre 1982 (when Nixon's anti-poverty and anti-hunger initiatives were in place) versus post (when Reagan struck many of them down and the proliferation of private, charitable food banks and shelters were in place.

Government sometimes works.

if you don't put a price on it.

Well, I'm sure it is not impossible to monetize the impact of 20% of all new molecular entities (the first step in drug development) coming from public funding, to find the value in providing an extended quality of life to HIV patients where they would have been dead after 2 years (and that technology ultimately going to Big Pharma creating shareholder value) and to understand the beneficial impact on Americans when virtually all the important vaccines introduced over the past quarter century came from the public sector.

Yes, NASA ran through a lot of cash (and I don't know if you are talking about NASA in the indictment on govt spending), but although we can joke Tang, flash freeze processing and the audio cassette, those things were some of the necessary quality of life introductions that contributed to America's position as the foremost innovator in the past 50 years.

The thing I overwhelmingly agree with you on is that the government never should have gotten involved in marriage. What was once a church issue became a governmental, medical, tax and property rights issue. Since we're here now, we have to deal with it as such. It would have been so much easier if the church covered marriages and City Halls covered contracts between individuals governing the sharing of property, liability and medical rights. That horse is never going back into the barn.

sardis wrote:I don't know if the Norks have this camouflage thing figured out yet...

They look like henchmen of The Riddler in the old Adam West "Batman" show.

How the hell can they hit anything squinting like that???