I started on a long trip out of Louisiana the other day. I'm heading up to my parents' fortieth wedding anniversary. Marriages work when the married couple WORKS AT THE MARRIAGE, or so I am led to understand.
When I started my drive, I was interested to note the hazards one meets on the road. You expect bad drivers, possibly deer running out in front of you, and I have even encountered flocks of wild pigs and a lone cow standing in the road. But the first hazard I almost but didn't quite run into was the cranes. Not construction ones; large white birds, possibly of endangered species. They were feeding in many places beside the road, and often as you drove past they would take flight. Some of the stupid ones would fly in front of your car. These aren't like little sparrows that might get stuck in your radiator grill, but do no worse damage. These birds are five feet tall, with equally huge wingspans.
Passing into Arkansas, the flights of cranes stopped, but heavy rains began. I understand those same storms have since caused tremendous trouble in Texas and Oklahoma, as well as Arkansas. I slowed down quite a bit, since I was not keen to hit a semi, and couldn't really see more than fifty feet in front of me. The rain continued through Little Rock, and along the highway towards Memphis. It wasn't until I turned north just before Memphis that driving conditions began to worsen a bit.
Along this road, I saw what I first thought were towers of clouds, but there were many of them and all along the horizon. When I got closer, I found that they were actually burning fields. A prarie fire? That is what I thought at first. The flames were lapping up, and smoke was all across the highway. I prayed for rain to put out the fires. However, shortly thereafter, I began to wonder if these were deliberate fires. I passed fields which had been burned to the treeline, but the trees were untouched. That sort of thing suggests a controlled burn. Why were they burning the fields. Contrary to what people in New York say, the folks who live in Arkansas are not stupid. There is a reason to burn your fields, but I haven't any idea what. I'll go read up on it to find out. In the meantime, beware of smoke on the highway in eastern Arkansas and southeastern Missouri...
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Saturday, June 9, 2007
The Conrad Black Trial
If you haven't been following this trial, in some ways it is more interesting that Paris Hilton's jailbird escapades, and certainly it is a great deal more relevant to you.
This is what Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald (remember him from the Scooter Libby investigation?) has been doing to fill his free time. The case involves Conrad Black, a member of the House of Lords in England, a Canadian citizen and resident, and one of the biggest media barons in the world. Through one of his companies, Hollinger International, he sold off some newspapers to other buyers, and Hollinger made a profit of $3 billion dollars. For this, Black was given a bonus of almost $60 million dollars. The shareholders saw their stock value increase, which makes this not exactly an Enron case. The other thing that makes it not Enron is the lack of any actual crime that was committed, as discussed in the next paragraph.
Fitzgerald's office seems to object to a group of "non-compete" agreements, i.e. that the person selling the newspaper will not then open a rival newspaper in the same market as the one they just sold. This is standard practice, and happens for obvious reasons that are fairly obvious. If the seller could open a new paper, it would push the value of what they just sold down to zero, bankrupt the person who had bought that paper, and the seller could snap it back up at a fraction of its value. Remember that if you are thinking of purchasing a newspaper or a magazine franchise from someone: always get a non-compete agreement.
In America, you pay taxes on non-competes, because that's the way our tax law is written. In Canada, you don't pay taxes on them. In fact, it's one of the shockingly few things in Canada that isn't taxed. Black, being a Canadian citizen who lives in Canada, pays his taxes according to Canadian law. Shocking concept, isn't it? But Fitzgerald seems to object to that, and wants to send him away to jail for 101 years, not for tax evasion (there would be no hope of securing that conviction) but for defrauding the Hollinger for $60 million. Fitzgerald is saying that these non-compete agreements are illegal, and cost the company money.
I have trouble following how you can cost a company money when you have made the company a profit of $3 billion dollars. Indeed, if anyone wishes to make me a profit of $3 billion dollars, I shall be happy to award them a $60 million dollar bonus, which is what Hollinger did. But perhaps my naive view of the way business works is why I am not a federal prosecutor.
Also, it's hard to say that one defrauds a company when its entire board of directors, the audit committee within the company, and the shareholder's vote all agreed to the sale and the bonuses awarded. That's one heck of a large conspiracy going on there. And now that I think of it, I could have accessed the publicly disclosed records, since I have a computer and access to the internet. I must be part of the conspiracy too!
There was never anything illegal committed, as far as I can tell. Shouldn't a crime have been committed before the government decides to prosecute? Mike Nifong decided to prosecute the Duke Lacrosse team without waiting for them to commit a crime, and people thought it wrong. Well it is wrong. If there is no crime, then prosecution becomes government oppression.
Another odd thing about this case is that it is in the Federal District of Northern Illinois. So they are prosecuting a Canadian citizen over something involving Canadian tax laws. Don't get me wrong: I would love to absorb Canada into the United States lock, stock, and barrel, and make that country work the way it ought to. That's the imperialist in me talking. But to the best of my knowledge, Canada is not yet part of the Union. So why is Fitzgerald claiming sovereignty over our northern neighbor? It makes no sense to me.
If the prosecution wins this case, the precedent it sets is this: you will be prosecuted if the government dislikes you, quite independently of whether you have committed a crime. That would be an alarming thing to have happen in the home of the Free.
My thanks to Mark Steyn for getting me interested in this case.
This is what Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald (remember him from the Scooter Libby investigation?) has been doing to fill his free time. The case involves Conrad Black, a member of the House of Lords in England, a Canadian citizen and resident, and one of the biggest media barons in the world. Through one of his companies, Hollinger International, he sold off some newspapers to other buyers, and Hollinger made a profit of $3 billion dollars. For this, Black was given a bonus of almost $60 million dollars. The shareholders saw their stock value increase, which makes this not exactly an Enron case. The other thing that makes it not Enron is the lack of any actual crime that was committed, as discussed in the next paragraph.
Fitzgerald's office seems to object to a group of "non-compete" agreements, i.e. that the person selling the newspaper will not then open a rival newspaper in the same market as the one they just sold. This is standard practice, and happens for obvious reasons that are fairly obvious. If the seller could open a new paper, it would push the value of what they just sold down to zero, bankrupt the person who had bought that paper, and the seller could snap it back up at a fraction of its value. Remember that if you are thinking of purchasing a newspaper or a magazine franchise from someone: always get a non-compete agreement.
In America, you pay taxes on non-competes, because that's the way our tax law is written. In Canada, you don't pay taxes on them. In fact, it's one of the shockingly few things in Canada that isn't taxed. Black, being a Canadian citizen who lives in Canada, pays his taxes according to Canadian law. Shocking concept, isn't it? But Fitzgerald seems to object to that, and wants to send him away to jail for 101 years, not for tax evasion (there would be no hope of securing that conviction) but for defrauding the Hollinger for $60 million. Fitzgerald is saying that these non-compete agreements are illegal, and cost the company money.
I have trouble following how you can cost a company money when you have made the company a profit of $3 billion dollars. Indeed, if anyone wishes to make me a profit of $3 billion dollars, I shall be happy to award them a $60 million dollar bonus, which is what Hollinger did. But perhaps my naive view of the way business works is why I am not a federal prosecutor.
Also, it's hard to say that one defrauds a company when its entire board of directors, the audit committee within the company, and the shareholder's vote all agreed to the sale and the bonuses awarded. That's one heck of a large conspiracy going on there. And now that I think of it, I could have accessed the publicly disclosed records, since I have a computer and access to the internet. I must be part of the conspiracy too!
There was never anything illegal committed, as far as I can tell. Shouldn't a crime have been committed before the government decides to prosecute? Mike Nifong decided to prosecute the Duke Lacrosse team without waiting for them to commit a crime, and people thought it wrong. Well it is wrong. If there is no crime, then prosecution becomes government oppression.
Another odd thing about this case is that it is in the Federal District of Northern Illinois. So they are prosecuting a Canadian citizen over something involving Canadian tax laws. Don't get me wrong: I would love to absorb Canada into the United States lock, stock, and barrel, and make that country work the way it ought to. That's the imperialist in me talking. But to the best of my knowledge, Canada is not yet part of the Union. So why is Fitzgerald claiming sovereignty over our northern neighbor? It makes no sense to me.
If the prosecution wins this case, the precedent it sets is this: you will be prosecuted if the government dislikes you, quite independently of whether you have committed a crime. That would be an alarming thing to have happen in the home of the Free.
My thanks to Mark Steyn for getting me interested in this case.
Friday, June 8, 2007
I've decided that I like Fred Thompson for president. I had been thinking that nobody in the race matched me closely enough that I could in clear conscience vote for them. But Fred Thompson will do just fine, if he means the things he is saying.
People should get involved in politics. Their country, states, and cities are important to them (even if they don't know it, yet!), and they should follow politics. Eventually, a lot more people should put their hats into the ring than do. I may run for city council or school board some day. I think I could do some good there.
People should get involved in politics. Their country, states, and cities are important to them (even if they don't know it, yet!), and they should follow politics. Eventually, a lot more people should put their hats into the ring than do. I may run for city council or school board some day. I think I could do some good there.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Random things
First of all, I hate people that cheat at cards, chess (yes, it can be done), checkers, or any other game. It's stupid and petty of them, and makes me think very low of them.
Second, I hate it when the same people afterwards, to whom I am possibly trying to be gracious, try and guilt me into doing social functions you don't want to do. Not only do I not think I owe them anything, I am particularly disinclined to do anything nice even out of a sense of generosity.
Hmph.
Second, I hate it when the same people afterwards, to whom I am possibly trying to be gracious, try and guilt me into doing social functions you don't want to do. Not only do I not think I owe them anything, I am particularly disinclined to do anything nice even out of a sense of generosity.
Hmph.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
