Green Jelly - MISADVENTURES OF SHITMAN; Ranting About

This is what we need - a huge hunk of dung to lay the smackdown on John "Songbird" McCain.

What brought this on, you might ask? It was the crapfest, half of which I read on the train going home Thursday evening - McCain Flub? Republican Says He'd Fire SEC Chair as President.

I have a little rant there in the comments section, but I'd rather go on a new rant here...

When I was growing up, I realized the advantages of physical superiority. However, I did not take advantage of them, preferring to use brains over brawn.

It has served me well in life to have been able to obtain and attain what I have and possess, not having to have forced anyone to do so.

But I wonder...is coercion any better than outright thuggery?

I participated in Mock Trial back in my high school days...our team did fairly well, until we went against one of the top schools. I spoke to the judge later on, after the tournament. In theory, he agreed with my premise; however, the opposing team was able to circumvent my arguments; in other words, they were able to COERCE testimony not prevalent in the case, which cost our team the winning judgement.

This was a learning experience...this is when I first discovered that the LAW was not necessarily JUSTICE.

My second opportunity was when we had a lawyer visit us, and we were able to pose to him a multitude of questions.

One of my questions pertained to the stock market crash of 1987. I inquired, "If an individual murders another individual, he is tried for murder...yet, if an unscrupulous broker caused the dissolution of a investor's funds by unsound business practices and simple greed, and this occurs to numerous investors, whose life savings are now gone, wouldn't that be considered mass murder?"

I never really got a satisfactory answer to that question, but I do remember the initial reason offered...it was because they were not FORCED to do so.

I am the guy who, when confronted with a gun to my temple, told the would-be robber that if he wanted my walkman (and this was not an iPod...this was a cassette player!), he could take it from my cold, dead body, but that I wasn't going to give him ANYTHING.

I still have that walkman...but I digress.

Here's the point - I really don't see why criminals should benefit from profitting from more than one victim...but this is exactly what the law entails.

I don't see a real difference in disenfranchising one individual versus entire families...in the end, they are devoid of their valuables, are they not?

I happen to think that not being given the choice to fight for your valuables make the crime more heinous. With a mugging, the perpetrator is right there - you have a face to go with the crime; in the other instance, you stand around, impotent without being able to point a finger concretely.

Ivan Boesky bilked a number of clients. After he served his time (apparently, it wasn't a very long sentence, nor was he subject to the tender mercies of being in general population), he sued his ex-wife. He said that he "couldn't live as a poor man".

Apparently, the judge agreed with him.

So...who says that crime doesn't pay? It certainly bloody worked in this case. He is living on funds diverted to his ex-wife from his ill-gotten gains.

What puzzles me is...why aren't perpetrators of financial crimes not made to return ALL of their ill-gotten gains?

Let's say that I am the guy who made those short sells on American and United Airlines. I have $2.5 million dollars that is owed to me...but do I dare retrieve them? I mean...what's the real penalty? There is the matter of foreknowledge...but that will have to be proven in a court of law. I can always say that I had a dream...or a little birdy told me that those four days would be profitable...meanwhile, I'll pay a tidy fine, and I'll suffer the odd looks from neighbors...but you know what?

I'll probably retain most of that $2.5 million, so WHO CARES?

I'll get new neighbors who appreciate my new art collection as it comes in daily from auctions.

What I am saying here is that in a world where no one cares about MORALS, and everyone is consumed with MONEY, civility does NOT matter.

All's fair in love and war, right?

How do you rehabilitate repeat offenders, when that is the maxim of the world in which they live?

You already know the answer.

Look at our elected officials - they know what the answer is: take as much as you can get, and bugger all to your constituents...after all, who paid for the Maserati you're driving?

Is it a coincidence that practically all of our elected officials are MILLIONAIRES? How do they represent the common man and/or woman?

I'll leave you with this...because I have to go read something funny...If Lifestyles Of The Rich And Famous returned to television...and we DO have a return to the days of the Great Depression...that show will have a spinoff called The Lifestyles Of The Recently Eaten and Dessicated.

Bob Cesca has a good head in this debate.

Had to add this - IT’S THE DERIVATIVES, STUPID!
WHY FANNIE, FREDDIE AND AIG ALL HAD TO BE BAILED OUT