Doctor refuses to treat baby of lesbian parents

We posted before on how some business owners have come under pressure to serve same sex clients in what they see as expressive and more personal services such as renting a wedding suite to a same sex couple, creating photographs or video for a same sex wedding or providing a cake celebrating the same. To the extent that some extremely religious or extremely bigoted people have balked at customers requesting such services they have usually lost their case in court IF their state happens to have laws forbidding such discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. However not every state has such laws. Michigan for example does not. A local lesbian couple found that out the hard way when a pediatrician refused to see their child and referred the family to another doctor in her practice. Now medical coverage is just a wee bit more important than buying a cake or photographs from someone but the principle remains the same. I'm not sure there is a logically consistent method by which the state government could say we will allow market discrimination in that sector but not this one. Or is there? Is this an all or nothing sort of situation?

Last September when the expectant mothers first met Dr. Vesna Roi at Eastlake Pediatrics in Roseville. She was recommended by their midwife.

"We were really happy with her," Krista said. "The kind of care she offered, we liked her personality, she seemed pretty friendly. She seemed pretty straight up with us."
The Contrerasas were told to make an appointment with Roi once Bay arrived. The baby was born at home and when she was six days old - they went in.

But instead of seeing Dr. Roi, another doctor greeted them.
"The first thing Dr. Karam said was 'I'll be your doctor, I'll be seeing you today because Dr. Roi decided this morning that she prayed on it and she won't be able to care for Bay," Jami said. "Dr. Karam told us she didn't even come to the office that morning because she didn't want to see us."
The new mothers were shocked, hurt and angry. Bay's parents proceeded with the appointment with the other doctor then found another pediatric group for their baby.

The child did get medical attention. The practice and recalcitrant doctor are receiving a lot of bad publicity. That's probably not good for business. At the same time there are some businesses which are more expressive and personal where I am slightly more sympathetic to the idea that if someone really doesn't want to do something, for whatever reason, it might not be the best idea to force the market interaction. The pure libertarian will say that the market will work it all out and to stop worrying and coddling people. Well the history of Jim Crow shows that's just not the case. The market can just as easily codify discrimination as overturn it. Libertarians are wrong about the efficiency of the market. On the other hand I'm not 100% supportive of forcing a small privately owned devoutly Catholic greeting card company to handle all the invitations for a same sex wedding. But this is a child's health we're discussing. Is there a middle ground? Should Michigan pass a law to make the doctor's behavior illegal? Would you want to patronize a business where the owner made it clear that he or she didn't much like you? Because I wouldn't. If the law allows someone to decline to treat a child isn't that a bad law? Watch the two women talk about their experiences.




  Fox 2 News Headlines

Dinesh D'Souza, President Obama and Racism

As we discussed previously there is a certain type of person, often but by no means always, non-black, who feels qualified to circumscribe and negatively judge what blackness is. This is an ongoing theme in American society. It arises from slavery, Jim Crow and the resulting American tradition of policing what is "white" and what is "black". Some people once criticized Spike Lee movies because they felt he wasn't focusing enough on black drug addiction. Others blasted The Cosby Show for showing two upper-middle class black people happily married to each other and presiding over achieving children. Occasionally people criticize out of ignorance or even well-meaning condescension. However some other people question or insult someone's blackness from pure malevolence, racism and fear. Such men or women are threatened, confused and ultimately angered by any Black person who doesn't fit their stereotypes. For them Blackness means always and only to be the permanent outsider, to be less than, to be impoverished, to be criminal, to be unworthy of respect, to speak incoherently and act ridiculously, to dress in a loud fashion, to be the grinning, shucking, jiving, spear chucking, incompetent, sex obsessed, perpetually late, lazy, dumb, Mandingo/Mammy/Jezebel/Uncle Ben/Nat Turner/Sapphire who haunts their worst nightmares or fevered fantasies. 

Dinesh D'Souza is such a racist. 

It's ironic that an immigrant from Mumbai, India somehow thinks himself eminently qualified to engage in discourse on President Obama's "blackness". But I shouldn't be too surprised. From virtually the unfortunate moment he slithered onto our shores D'Souza has taken heed of the cynical saw that the quickest way to become truly American is to ensure that everyone knows you hate Black people just as much as they presumably do. Not content with having previously suggested that President Obama's mother was a sex crazed fat tramp with a dislike for her own race, the felon D'Souza recently claimed that President Obama didn't have the black experience and referred to him as a "boy". If the Klan or Nazi party ever opened up membership to South Asians look for D'Souza to be first in line to lynch himself. There are PLENTY of valid reasons to criticize President Obama and his actions as President from various political perspectives. That's fair. We should not aspire to behave like some partisans (cough *Al Sharpton* cough) who check to see if President Obama agrees that the sun actually rose today before they talk about the beautiful sunrise they're watching. But there are people like D'Souza who find that President Obama's original unforgivable mortal sin is his race. Most of these people fall on the conservative side of the political spectrum. It is what is is. 

Most black voters will never vote for conservatives as long as conservative public figures and intellectuals such as D'Souza remain happily wed to ugly anti-black animus. Life doesn't work like that. Who knows how much of D'Souza's racism was imported from his mother country and how much he picked up in the USA. The United States is far from the only country to have issues with racism. But a slug like D'Souza provides an example that the much ballyhooed "browning of America" won't necessarily engender a lessening of anti-black attitudes. It's almost humorous that an adulterous felon like D'Souza can fix his mouth to say anything about the President of the United States. How are you going to call someone ghetto and you're in a halfway house waiting for your next urine test? If I were a president of a religious school who got caught practicing Kama Sutra positions with a woman not my wife I would slink away and deal with my moral failings instead of spewing bigoted bile at President Obama. Not D'Souza. His slimy racism just oozes out of him everywhere he crawls.

YOU CAN TAKE THE BOY OUT OF THE GHETTO...Watch this vulgar man show his stuff, while America cowers in embarrassment pic.twitter.com/C9yLG4QoOK
— Dinesh D'Souza (@DineshDSouza) February 18, 2015

I know Obama wasn't actually raised in a ghetto--I'm using the term metaphorically, to suggest his unpresidential conduct
— Dinesh D'Souza (@DineshDSouza) February 18, 2015

By the way, whatever you may think of affirmative action MLK vociferously supported it. Lying conservatives like D'Souza want to pretend otherwise. But MLK made his feelings clear on many different occasions. You can actually go look this stuff up for yourself if you're so inclined. D'Souza shows the utter incoherence of his racism. From one side of his mouth he claims that President Obama hasn't had the black experience and thus can't really identify with Black Americans. From the other side he calls the President a "boy" and links him to THE GHETTO (insert scary music). There are many adult black men who have had to deal with racists calling them "boys" or making cracks about "ghettos". So I guess the President really has had the black experience after all.

THOUGHTS?

McDonald's Meltdowns and Wal-Mart Head Butts

I work in a white-collar office environment. It's air conditioned in the summer and heated in the winter. I don't have to punch a time clock upon arrival, when I go to the bathroom, or upon leaving for the day. There is not a lot of cursing and yelling going on most days. Not every white-collar environment I've been in has been like this. A boss with a reputation for bullying once yelled something nasty at me. I had a very short, direct, and serious discussion with him where the upshot was he apologized. I later heard that he expressed admiration that I was willing to stand up to him. Whatever. Some former co-workers were quite passionate about their job and would routinely get into very LOUD profane nasty shouting matches with each other. They once got into it in front of a visiting company director. I don't know if they were disciplined or not but I do know that neither one was ever promoted. They're doing the same job today for close to the same pay that they were doing fifteen years ago. So you can connect the dots there I guess. I do not usually work with outside customers. I'm more adept with the written word than with verbal communication so this is probably for the best. There are many angry, frustrated customers who are eager to vent their spleen to an easy target, like say an employee who has certain rules to follow lest he or she lose his job. Having to take this sort of abuse coupled with just the normal problems and issues of work can cause some employees to lose it. The three below videos show some examples of what's really going on the front lines of customer-employee interaction. 

In the first video a Michigan area McDonald's customer is angry about an incorrect charge/wrong order and starts insulting the clerk in the harshest of language. In the second video a Texas Wal-Mart customer named Jessica Albitz is angry about something a tax preparer said to her, comes back the next day and (you guessed it) head butts the employee. Yeah. A scuffle breaks out. The unrepentant Albitz was charged with assault. If you're going to call someone out of her name I don't think you can get upset when she responds in kind. In the last video a Twin Cities teen McDonald's worker is apparently upset about his hours and money. He throws a temper tantrum in front of customers. He destroys company property. The teen and his manager were fired. The adult manager, Brandon Roberston, says it was unfair that he was fired because his possible responses were limited. Robertson could not put his hands on the teen. Robertson called police and did his best to calm the young man. I don't know what this says about our society but I do know there was a reason I don't patronize McDonald's or Wal-Mart. Seriously though I can't abide anyone (customers or fellow employees) yelling at me or cursing at me. It's not that kind of party. Although I am very protective of my job and have done some things I didn't think I would do in order to stay employed there are red lines for me. Verbal abuse crosses those lines. A boss can tell me I'm the worst most useless employee that she or he ever had and it won't get to me. But if someone yells or curses at me then we have an issue. But we're all different.








Brandon Robertson: Lonnie Johnson Confrontation
Jessica Albitz: Alice Keener brawl
Michigan McDonald's Cursing

Have you ever been in a serious employee-customer or workplace dispute?

How did you resolve it?

Was McDonald's right to fire Robertson?

Are people angrier in public these days?

Movie Reviews: Fury, Rob The Mob, The Raid: Redemption

Fury
directed by David Ayer

"Better a Russian on your belly than an American on your head".
If American Sniper depicted the true life tale of a righteous soldier in what many Americans thought was a bad war, Fury tells a fictional story of flawed soldiers in what most Americans, Patrick Buchanan aside , still think of as the good war. People beatify the Greatest Generation and tend to overlook their foibles. They had the same flaws as any other human who must adapt to killing and other forms of brutality exercised in the cause of "good". Only someone who has actually been there or has studied what war does to people can speak authoritatively about what actually happens but humans are very observant. Since the times of the ancients, people have noticed that war changes people. War can take a mental toll on the surviving participants. Every veteran deals with this in different ways. Many have no issues reintegrating themselves into society. Others struggle. And a minority are never quite the same. There may be glory in war. But there is also fear, cowardice, viciousness, savagery, rape and any number of ways for soldiers or civilians to die slowly, painfully or suddenly. It's a sudden death which opens Fury. A German officer rides a horse through a smoking battlefield littered with debris, wreckage, shell casings and corpses. He is set upon from above and quickly and coldly dispatched by an American soldier who was playing dead. This soldier is Staff Sergeant Don "WarDaddy" Collier (Brad Pitt in high testosterone mode), commander of the Sherman Tank named Fury. It's early 1945 and much to WarDaddy's chagrin the Germans won't stop fighting. He's been killing them in North Africa, Italy, France, The Netherlands and now Germany but those slimy SOB's just won't quit. 

The WW2 era German tanks generally had an advantage in both armament and armor over the American tanks. There were numerous reports of American tank shells bouncing off the front armor of German tanks while a direct hit from the higher powered 88mm German gun could immediately disable or destroy an American tank. The Americans are nonetheless winning the war through attrition. While this may be acceptable to the American generals and politicians who have the luxury of seeing the big picture it's not something that the American enlisted men, junior officers and NCOs who do the majority of fighting and dying like to think about. They are beyond ready to quit and go home but their job isn't done. Against the odds WarDaddy has mostly kept his tank crew safe. This team includes "Gordo" (Michael Pena) the Mexican-American tank driver and primary machine gunner who dresses in what has come to be perceived as a stereotypically East L.A.Hispanic style, "Bible"( Shia Laboeuf) the ostentatiously religious tank gunner who thinks that Jesus will save the souls of the Nazis he kills, and "Coon-Ass" (Jon Bernthal) a thuggish bullying southern man who handles repairs, loads the tank gun and helps navigate. Fury is down a man, Red, who was lost in the opening battle. So WarDaddy is assigned Norman Ellison (Logan Lerman) to be his new assistant driver and second machine gunner. WarDaddy and his team are not happy about this. No one likes rookies because rookies can get you killed. When the unit learns that Norman was previously the battalion typist (a job they consider somewhat effeminate) and discovers that he's unable to meet approved standards for ruthlessness they move from dislike and suspicion to outright contempt. Norman is upset at being plucked from relative safety to fight on the front lines against enemy soldiers too dumb to know they've already lost and too fanatical or vicious not to employ atrocities. Norman is initially shocked and bewildered that people are actually shooting at him.

The not so merry crew of Fury has new assignments to complete. Norman will have to deal with his new role as best he can. Fury has some very obvious similarities to Inglorious Basterds and Saving Private Ryan but this movie has its own messages to send and questions to raise about the nature of war and its effect on men. The quote at the top of this post is a darkly cynical joke which was supposedly shared by German civilian women during the waning days of World War Two. We should all remember that the capricious horrors of war are not just experienced by uniformed soldiers. Total war, which was taken to extremes in World War Two, impacts everyone, man, woman and child, soldier and civilian alike. Fury takes care to bring this to our attention in a tense set piece that is open to different interpretations. But whatever gender we're discussing, Fury is a very violent film. The fanatical SS have forced or recruited women and children to fight. The viewer may be repelled by the tank crew. In different ways they are all hard to take. WarDaddy leads his unit not just because of the stripes on his arm but because he will kick a disobedient soldier's teeth out. And for some people WarDaddy believes that's the best way to communicate. As WarDaddy constantly reminds us he is there to kill Germans, not have philosophical debates. He is a very pragmatic man. In his job he has to be. I enjoyed this movie immensely. Any movie that can make Shia LaBoeuf look like a tough guy and not make me immediately break out laughing has something going for it. Fury featured the world's last working German Tiger tank so that was a treat. This is one of the better war movies which I've seen in a while. For my money it's right up there with Saving Private Ryan. Obviously I generally like war movies so if this isn't really your genre you may see this film differently. Some people got sidetracked by gender role discussions. Others couldn't tolerate the violence. 

The writing and pacing are taut. People only rarely do stupid things to move the plot along. A fair criticism of Fury could be that we already know that war is hell. Some might claim the film doesn't have much more to say than that. I still think it's worthwhile though. And you would have to see it for yourself but I believe there is a kernel of humanism buried deep in this movie, although it's somewhat heavy handed.
TRAILER




Rob the Mob
directed by Raymond DeFelitta

Pound for pound an individual mob member isn't necessarily any tougher than any other criminal. A lot of very powerful mobsters aren't really physically that imposing. Many are middle aged or even elderly. Quite a few are overweight. There are no bulletproof mobsters. John Gotti could talk a lot of racist smack when he was surrounded by his friends and flunkies in Howard Beach. When he did the same thing in prison he caught a pretty bad beating from a black inmate who evidently did not give a single flying Fibber McGee who Gotti was. What historically gave the mob its power wasn't just its recruitment of tough guys but its ability to corrupt public officials, its noted institutional capacity to always obtain revenge no matter how long it took to do so, and of course its size, secrecy and unity. If you were a forward looking mob leader you might eschew open violence as plebeian and costly. Once you have a solid multi-generational reputation for unparalleled savagery you can pension off most of your shtarkers and just take it easy. However you can't get rid of all of the mouth breathing low IQ leg breaker loyalists because criminals being criminals there will always be a few ambitious cold eyed men (and women!) who think that they have what it takes to knock you off the top roost. Most of these people are stupid, incompetent and mistaken. But a few of them are individuals that the wise mob boss would do well to keep a eye on.

Rob The Mob is the fictionalized tale of two real life small time criminals (husband and wife) named Tommy and Rosemarie Uva who decided that it would be a great idea to knock over Mafia social clubs. Tommy (Michael Pitt from Boardwalk Empire) is an ex-con who carries around massive grudges and abiding shame because as a child he watched Mafiosi humiliate, intimidate and beat his father, a struggling florist who was either behind on loan repayments or balked at paying extortion. When Tommy is released from prison he is delighted to hook up with his partner in crime, girlfriend and eventual wife Rosie (Nina Arianda). Rosie's gone straight and manages to get Tommy a job working the phones with her at a debt collection agency. But Tommy's restless and looking for bigger things. Skipping work to attend the John Gotti trial Tommy learns from turncoat Mafiosi Sammy the Bull Gravano's testimony that a lot of gambling occurs at Mafia social clubs but guns are strictly forbidden. A light goes off in Tommy's head. Tommy can scarcely tell one end of a gun from the other. But to prove to himself and Rosemarie that he's a real man, to attempt to support his estranged struggling mother and brother, to avenge his father's humiliation and finally for the cash and excitement, he convinces Rosemarie to join him in robbing Mafia social clubs and gratuitously degrading mobsters across Queens and Brooklyn.

Andy Garcia is a mob boss who understands that the old ways are gone. But he also knows that if you're gonna live in the jungle you are better off being a lion than an antelope. If other criminal groups get the idea that the Mafia can be robbed with impunity the entire underworld structure will come crashing down. Even an old lion can still bite. I remember when Garcia was playing the leading man or the well dressed up and coming youngster. Well he's still sartorially splendid but now he's playing grandfathers. Time waits for no man. The FBI also gets involved in the story. This movie was uneven but I liked the Uvas' emphatically blue-collar dreams and aspirations. Rob the Mob is a poignant film. Even small scores are big money for Tommy and Rosemarie. They don't make much money at their legal jobs. They aren't master criminals. They lack long term goals, something that crime reporter Jerry Cardozo (Ray Romano as a fictionalized Jerry Capeci) tries to point out to them. Their big plan is to move to Florida to open a floral shop. In terms of acting, lighting, and sets this film is gritty and dark but not at all very explicit or violent. It has a small look which really fits the story. This film ran a little long but as far as I can tell (I'm not from New York) it did a good job at capturing the less wholesome flavor of late eighties and early nineties New York City. From what I hear from friends and relatives who are NYC residents, much of Manhattan and the outer boroughs has been transformed demographically and physically from just a few decades ago.
TRAILER





The Raid: Redemption
directed by Gareth Evans

Imagine ducking dozens of gunmen trying to turn you into pink slime, a thug trying to to kick you right in your muyerfuying head, a criminal throwing power packed punches with VERY bad intentions to your gonads and an insane crackhead attempting to chop your face off with his machete. And if you somehow manage to escape all of that some other goon is trying to throw you down three flights of stairs just because he doesn't like the look of your face. Now for some people that's just the normal Thursday office status meeting. But for the rest of us who live more staid lives, the closest we will come to such activities will probably be seeing them depicted in films like this. And that's likely a good thing. The Raid is a throwback to those Saturday afternoon kung-fu movies that I enjoyed watching when I was growing up way back in the day. There isn't really much plot or acting. This is action distilled down to its simplest core. Kill the bad guy before he kills you. This film is virtually a live action video game. I don't mean that as any kind of insult. This movie doesn't pretend to be much more than that. So if you're in the mood for no hold barred do or die beatdowns where you have to put your back to the wall and sneer at your enemies to come and get one in the yarbles, if they have any yarbles, then this is definitely a film that you need to see.

In Indonesia a police officer named Rama (Iko Uwais and that is the only actor I care to name) is practicing his silat (martial arts) moves while his pregnant wife sleeps. He's getting serious with the heavy bag. When his wife wakes up she asks Rama to promise he will return to her. Rama's a man on a mission you see. The greenlight has come down from the very top. The police bosses and ranking politicians have had it up to here with crime lord/drug dealer Riyadi. Riyadi has taken over an entire apartment building and filled it with various violent lowlifes, all of whom are armed and eager to prove their loyalty to their boss. Rama, his team and supervisors have been tasked to infiltrate the building and bring Riyadi in. They're supposed to try to take him alive but dead is fine. Riyadi has two dangerous lieutenants who are almost as vicious as he is. One lieutenant is named Mad Dog. You have to earn that name. I mean no one is going to nickname you Mad Dog unless you really are a savage bloodthirsty killer who enjoys punching a cop in the solar plexus, ripping out his liver and making him eat it without benefit of fava beans or a nice chianti. So the police try to quietly enter the building. But you know what they say about the best laid plans of men. I really liked the way this movie was shot. The action and camera work are frantic and even paradoxically realistic (well realistic for a kung-fu movie). When the action stops intermittently the suspense cranks up quite a bit. 

There are some moral questions raised which are usually more applicable to soldiers than to police. Do you kill a child lookout who could give away your position? If you're hiding from the bad guys and your mortally wounded partner is about to scream from pain and let everyone know where you are, what do you do? Do you ease him into the next life or say the hell with it and come out blasting? You might be surprised by what you can use as a weapon when necessity dictates. The film's dialogue is available in the original Indonesian or dubbed English. There is also the choice of English subtitles.
TRAILER

The Janet Malone case: why I despise the IRS

Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
Taxman-The Beatles
My problem with many federal regulatory agencies in general and the IRS in particular is that they tend to operate under Lavrentiy Beria's proscription of "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime". When both by regulation and by law the list of crimes ever expands then everyone, innocent or not, can be found guilty of something. I have read (and experienced?) that if a police officer really wants to stop you he can find a esoteric traffic violation of some sort before you've driven three blocks. The IRS operates under the same principle. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. This society is supposed to endorse the principle of innocent until proven guilty. The IRS doesn't really operate under those rules. For too long Congress has given the IRS a free hand to seize people's assets and property before any sort of proceeding has really established guilt. I believe in paying the taxes that I owe and following the law. But I don't believe that Congress (which is to say we the people) should be giving the IRS and other regulatory or law enforcement agencies wide swaths of poorly defined authority, particularly when it comes to putting people in jail and taking their money. Too often such authority is wielded with a vengeance against relatively powerless individuals who don't have the connections or funds to fight back. It's rare that we hear about a banker or other financial big shot going to prison for money laundering in drug or arms dealing crimes. Such banks and individuals are often thought to be too big to fail. No one has gone to prison for the mortgage meltdown that almost destroyed the US economy.
To combat tax evasion, drug trafficking, money laundering, terrorism, and other crimes, the IRS requires your bank or other financial institution to report to the IRS any deposits you make that are over $10,000. 

Once that rule became public knowledge, anyone with a working brain who was engaged in nefarious activities who still nonetheless needed access to the banking system would make deposits that did not exceed the $10,000 threshold and keep it moving. Maybe Monday they would deposit $2000 at ten different branches. Maybe Tuesday five different newly incorporated Bahamian based companies would make thirty deposits at twenty different banks. And so on. Apparently feeling a bit stupid at being so easily foiled Congress/The IRS also made it a crime to break up transactions below the $10,000 threshold. Theoretically this would allow them to go after those supposed super smart bad guys who had learned to count. The problem is this rule also made technical criminals out of virtually everyone else who used the banking system. So if you deposited $5000 today and $5000 next week because you're a small widget company owner who gets paid irregularly, or deposited $3500 in the morning and $6500 in the afternoon because you're a realtor who attended two closings, or deposited $5800 today and $9000 tomorrow because you're a widow who is closing the estate of your late husband the IRS could take your money and threaten to put you in prison.

IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) — An Iowa widow is charged with a crime and had nearly $19,000 seized from her bank after depositing her late husband's legally earned money in a way that evaded federal reporting requirements. Janet Malone, 68, of Dubuque, is facing civil and criminal proceedings under a law intended to help investigators track large sums of cash tied to criminal activity such as drug trafficking and terrorism. 

At issue is a law requiring banks to report deposits of more than $10,000 cash to the federal government. Anyone who breaks deposits into increments below that level to avoid the requirement is committing a crime known as "structuring" — whether their money is legal or not. 

Larry Salzman, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, criticized the government's case against Malone given its declared shift in practice. "This is shocking because it demonstrates that prosecutors are not taking seriously the IRS' alleged policy change not to prosecute legal source structuring," he said. After the policy change, federal prosecutors in Iowa agreed to return money the IRS seized from two people accused of structuring, including a restaurant owner who had $33,000 taken and a doctor who fought to get back $344,000 in earnings from his medical practice. But prosecutors declined to drop the civil forfeiture case over $18,775 the IRS seized from Malone.

Instead, they added a misdemeanor criminal charge last week alleging she willfully violated the law, after her husband had been warned about the practice four years ago. Malone is expected to plead guilty next week and let the government keep the money, under a plea agreement filed Monday. The charge carries up to one year in jail and a $250,000 fine.

Shortly before his death in October 2011, Ronald Malone told his wife about a briefcase containing $180,000 cash from his job as a publishing executive, gambling winnings and investment income. She deposited some of it in increments between $5,800 and $9,000. The IRS obtained a warrant to seize it based on suspicion that the transactions were meant to avoid reporting requirements.

LINK

I see this as nothing more than pure bullying. I have more respect for the Mafia thug who forces you to join his local "business association" or the hoodlum who carjacks you. Such criminals are honest at least. Here the government has taken money from an elderly widow and threatened to jail her simply because she deposited her money in her bank. There is no proof of criminal behavior. The same government that can't figure out how to make corporations pay taxes can bring down the hammer on an old woman. Such brave people they are. This kind of Kafkaesque exercise of authority needs to be halted. 

Thoughts?

Book Reviews: The Devil's Hatband, The World of Ice and Fire, Gotti's Rules

The Devil's Hatband
by Robert Greer

This was Greer's first novel and the beginning of his C.J. Floyd series which we earlier discussed here. The title refers to the barbed wire that ranchers use. There were lengthy and magnificent descriptions of the great western outdoors in all of its glory. I guess that if you are a person who enjoys being outside all the time then these vivid portrayals might be right up your alley. I found a few of them slightly overdone, like a sweet potato pie left in the oven too long. Speaking of food though I did appreciate the culinary accounts, as they reminded me of many family dishes or other kitchen creations found in traditional African-American restaurants. So there was that. Floyd can't always or at least openly enjoy much of this food as he is on a diet. Or at least he is supposed to be. When you cheat on a diet you're only cheating yourself but Floyd is okay with that.
Although C.J. Floyd is a lowly Denver bail bondsman and occasional bounty hunter he's really effectively a private eye in this story. He's a Vietnam Vet who's done his share and then some of killing. Back in the US, he's inherited his uncle's business. It's not much of a business but it is his. He always makes payroll but rarely has enough left over for profit. One of Floyd's fellow bondsmen is a bigoted white man who works Floyd's nerves but always stops just short of anything that would require fisticuffs. Still given Floyd's internal nationalist critiques I was surprised that there were not more verbal confrontations between Floyd and this man. After all it's not like Floyd works for him. The bond business is color coded. It's rare that Floyd gets the opportunity to work with wealthier or white criminals. Many of the black criminals either try to play on his nascent nationalistic feelings to avoid paying him back or literally just don't have the money. So when two shady black corporate executives enter his office and promise Floyd big money plus expenses and cash up front to find a young woman named Brenda Mathison and the documents she stole from their company, Floyd isn't exactly in a place where he can say no. He hems and haws to make it look like he isn't desperate but we all know, the bills must be paid no matter what.

Brenda is the daughter of a black federal judge. The judge sits on the board of directors of the company from which Brenda stole. The judge wants his daughter and the documents back ASAP and the whole affair kept quiet. The last thing the judge wants is the attention of the media or the police. Brenda has joined with a militant environmentalist movement named PlanetFirst. These are people who want to go way beyond things like spiking trees or suing polluters. Along with two men Brenda leads the group's most extreme faction. Brenda is involved romantically with at least one of the men. Her group's plans have encouraged possibly violent opposition from local ranchers, many of whom are hard men who don't like people messing with their business. But when Floyd finds Brenda strangled to death he has to figure out who killed Brenda and why. There's also someone who's literally gunning for Floyd. There are many suspects, including a particularly nasty gang member with a long memory and a serious grudge against Floyd. Someone might have been trying to set him up for Brenda's murder. There are also subplots about good love gone bad, racist cops, pathological science and the aforementioned beauty of the great outdoors. I was curious about the fact that Floyd chooses to eat in a diner where an ex works. They even have a relatively cordial relationship. I might reach that emotional state many years after the breakup I guess but initially I think I'd absolutely have to find someplace else to eat!!! Otherwise looking at her would bring up too many bad memories. Floyd occasionally has reason to regret his dining location. His former flame reminds him (usually obliquely but occasionally directly) of the reasons why they couldn't make it work. That would just get on my nerves. This was an okay read but I didn't like it as much as Greer's later work. Some plot twists came out of left field to surprise me. Others were very predictable. I don't mean that in a bad way. Maybe a better phrase might be comfortably familiar. The book reminded me of why it's never a good idea to let strangers into your home or place of work.



The World of Ice and Fire
By George R.R. Martin, Elio Garcia and Linda Antonsson

Ok. This is not, repeat not, an entry in the series, A Song of Ice and Fire. So if you're expecting that don't get this book. It's not a prequel either. It's not even a mostly definitive "this is what happened" Silmarillion style backstory for the world that Martin has created. However that last description is likely the closest. This is a hardcover lavishly bound coffee table book with high quality paper, great illustrations and plenty of sly comedy within. A Ser Kermit has a son named Ser Elmo. 
This book purports to be the history of Westeros and much of the known world. It's allegedly told by different people who likely have reasons for putting their own spin on past events. So the narrators are quite unreliable. Some people argue that history is not about what happened so much as it is trying to convince or make people in the present day accept a particular interpretation about what happened and why. For example if the Lannisters remain on top and win then certainly their history books will detail Ned's failed northern conspiracy to take the Iron Throne, the Tully treason and the desperate Stannis' ugly lies about his sister-in-law, nephews and nieces. If the North should restart the war and successfully defeat the Boltons and their Lannister overlords then Northern history texts written afterwards will gush about the Stark Restoration led by Queen Sansa or King Rickon. And so on. Anyhow this book details the beliefs and practices of the First Men, the invasions of the Andals and Rhoynish, and ultimately the Valyrian Targaryens. This tome (in some cases exhaustively) lists the various kings(Targaryen and otherwise) who ruled over Westeros or its constituent sub-kingdoms. The book is organized by region so if you just want background on say the Tyrells you can read the section concerned with The Reach and learn all about their rise to power. Different cultural practices are examined and exalted or derided. We learn the story of Robert's Rebellion, the creation of the Wall, why and how Tywin Lannister dealt so sharply with his father's enemies, Targaryen incest, the great deeds of Barristan Selmy, how dragons can be killed and many other historical events that have mostly been only briefly alluded to in the HBO show and only somewhat more so in the previously published books. The World of Ice and Fire also gives some information about Essos and the Free Cities and the Summer Isles. It gives short shrift to eastern continents and an alleged continent to the far south of Essos. The book also points out that there may be unknown lands over the western sea.

This book is obviously going to appeal primarily to Game of Thrones/A Song of Ice and Fire hardcore fans. Everyone else might be better off flipping thru this at the library, borrowing it from a hardcore fan you know or just browsing it at your local bookstore. Everyone should enjoy the wonderful elaborate artwork detailing the characters, banners and houses. However to be honest the text drags and becomes repetitive in a few places. There's only so many times that you can read that King so-n-so was a lech or King what's-his-face murdered his mother or King who-shot-John was a transvestite before it all starts to run together. This came out in October for $50 but you can currently pick up a new copy for $25 or less if you're so inclined. Again, this is not a novel. It's a compendium. There aren't "spoilers" for the TV show or the published books. It's very long but then again I suppose it should be. It is very obviously not Martin's writing style throughout--thus the co-authors.




Gotti's Rules: The story of John Alite, Junior Gotti and the Demise of the American Mafia
by George Anastasia

If you're not into mob stories then this is not a book for you. George Anastasia is a notable crime reporter and author who usually writes about organized crime in Philadelphia and the South Jersey area. For this book he heads north to New York City to tell us the life story of one John Alite, a vicious Albanian-American mobster who started out in Queens, befriended Junior Gotti, John Gotti's son, and rose to brief prominence in certain organized crime circles. Obviously things didn't quite work out like Alite planned. Alite ignored cryptic and not so cryptic warnings from Willie Boy Johnson, an Italian-Native American hoodlum who soured on the life and on John Gotti's racist insults. Johnson allegedly said that although it was too late for him Alite had non-criminal talents which he ought to pursue. Of course maybe Alite made this up. We can't ask Johnson because John Gotti had him murdered shortly after he was revealed to be an informant. You might say that as Alite can't physically get to Junior Gotti, whom he hates worse than cancer, and saw the government fail in its numerous attempts to incarcerate Junior Gotti, this book is his attempt to murder Junior Gotti's reputation as well as that of the entire extended Gotti clan. Although organized crime is an equal opportunity employer, the Mafia is most definitely not. Although he and his Italian-American partners, friends, rivals and bosses bond with each other over serious contempt for non-whites, primarily Blacks, as an non-Italian Alite is ineligible to be admitted to the Mafia's inner circle to become "made". That's reserved for Italians only. Alite doesn't mind this at first because he is a better earner and more physically dangerous than some made men. However the Mafia bylaws are clear that in any dispute between a made guy and a non-made guy the made guy is always right. So the enthusiastically violent Alite suffered a humiliating public pistol whipping from a made guy named Carmine Agnello. For Alite to even raise his hands in defense or attempt to seek revenge would have theoretically meant his own death. But all things considered he got off light because we later learn that Alite claimed to have had physical relations with Agnello's wife (and Junior's sister) Victoria Gotti. 

There is a death penalty for seducing or even flirting with any made man's wife or female relative. However people being people this rule is often ignored. Victoria Gotti has steadfastly denied that any such relationship ever took place. A proven affair would have greatly embarrassed Victoria Gotti and forced the hands of the Gotti-Agnello clan. Alite was earning a lot of money for Junior and his father. Alite initially had a healthy respect for the elder Gotti but had increasing disdain for Junior Gotti. Alite thought that Junior was an example of both low intelligence and nepotism. As Alite learned exactly how disposable all the Gottis considered him to be his disillusionment increased exponentially. And so did his dislike for and disrespect of Junior, often called "Urkel" behind his back because of his glasses and poor fashion sense. Alite was quick to take offense to slights. Alite describes ignoring Junior's order to get him an ashtray precisely because Junior "ordered" instead of "asked".

Alite's primary business was drug dealing, under the secret aegis of the Gotti crew. He later branched out into bookmaking, extortion, armed robbery and loan sharking among other things. Although Alite was relatively slight at 5-8 and well under 200 pounds, he was an athlete and boxer with a widely known and well deserved reputation for being extremely quick and equally dangerous with his hands, gun, baseball bat or knife. There were a number of murders and countless beatings or other assaults which Alite committed for Junior, the elder Gotti or for his own reasons. Alite even shot his cousin over a business dispute.
This is yet another book which gives the lie to the whole "Men of Honor" myth. So many of Alite's stories are EXACTLY the same as those you might read from a Hispanic or Black criminal. A thug is a thug regardless of race even though that word has become racialized. People are often shot or otherwise badly hurt not just because of "business" but because someone was drunk or was allegedly seen talking to someone's girlfriend/sister/wife/mother or lost a card game or just because it was the weekend and someone felt like flexing their muscles or bullying someone. There's no gallantry or respect for women. Alite was briefly a pimp; one of Junior Gotti's uncles allegedly raped and murdered a woman. Although Alite glories in pointing out Gotti hypocrisy (he provides proof of a Gotti initiated proffer to the feds) like most of us he overlooks his own nonsense. He claims to have never hurt anyone who wasn't "in the life" but seemingly forgets about the Florida bouncers he shot, beat and terrorized for an extortion racket he ran. The story is told almost entirely from Alite's POV with Anastasia interjecting undisputed facts only rarely. The book was interesting but as more and more mobsters testify against each other there is a nagging "been there, done that" feel to much of this story.

Corporate Tax Deductions for Settlements, Fines and Damages

When you do something wrong and are punished for it by having money taken from you the purpose of that little exercise is to convince you not to break the law or violate the rules again. The size of the fine may vary depending on how serious the offense is, whether the person who is being fined is a first time offender, how much money the person who is being fined has, whether or not the person or institution levying the fine is in a bad mood that day or is looking to make an public example of some schmuck or a million other reasons. But the purpose of the fine remains the same regardless of whether you are an NFL player who doesn't like to talk to the media, an NBA player who publicly questions the integrity of the league or its referees, or a taxpayer who simply doesn't like paying his taxes when the city, state or country says that he must. For example, in my younger days (i.e four years ago) I used to consider posted speed limits on expressways as something more akin to suggestions than hard and fast rules. I certainly wasn't the only motorist inclined to do this. On some local expressways if you aren't doing at least 80 mph you just aren't trying. However, four years ago a friendly police officer stopped me to let me know that no, he for one really did take those speed limits seriously. He thought I should as well. To assist me in reaching this future goal he wrote out a ticket that had a fine which I found to be entirely too high. Well I suppose it had the desired effect. I got a radar detector and kept a closer lookout for cops. Most days I rarely drive more than 3-4 mph over the posted speed limit. I simply don't have the money to give away to a podunk municipality over nonsense like that.
But imagine if instead of having to pay the entire fine myself and wreak havoc in my monthly budget I could come to you and force you to pay a significant portion of that fine. You might protest that you weren't the big dummy who was driving significantly over the speed limit. I would respond with something along the lines of how we were all in this together. I would help you out if it came to it. So suck it up buttercup and hand over some cash. If you were forced to pay part of my penalty not only would you be upset (something I wouldn't care about that much to be honest) but more importantly the fine wouldn't be enough to deter my future behavior. Because the net fine to me would then be much lower I would be less likely to be deterred from speeding. That would be a really good deal for me. It might not be such a great deal for you or for the rest of society. The person who incurred the cost and broke the law/rules is not the one who is paying the cost.

When a Montana judge ordered Hyundai to pay $73 million in punitive damages last year to the families of two teenagers killed in a car crash, she found that the South Korean automaker had “recklessly” ignored scores of warnings over more than a decade about the steering defect blamed for the accident. But even if Hyundai is eventually forced to pay the full amount of the damages, the punishment could be substantially reduced through a tax loophole that permits the company to save millions of dollars by deducting any court-ordered punitive damages as an ordinary business expense. The result, critics say, is that taxpayers are in effect subsidizing corporate misconduct. 

Carmakers are far from the only companies that can exploit loopholes that allow them to lower their tax bill by deducting fines, forfeitures and other payments related to wrongdoing. Although the tax law forbids deductions for criminal fines and penalties owed to the government, other kinds of payments — to compensate victims or correct damages — are eligible for a tax deduction.  The rating agency Standard & Poor’s, which was accused of helping to cause the financial crisis with its inflated assessments of mortgage investments, is eligible to deduct half of the $1.37 billion settlement with state and federal prosecutors it agreed to this week, according to the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a consumer-oriented nonprofit. The result would be a roughly $245 million reduction in its tax bill, the research group calculated.  

At least 80 percent of the more than $42 billion that BP has paid out because of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon rig explosion that killed 11 people and spewed oil into the Gulf of Mexico qualifies for a tax deduction, according to U.S. PIRG. That has saved an estimated $10 billion to $14 billion for the company. The exact amount is uncertain because of the lack of transparency, the group complained.  Brandon Garrett, a law professor at the University of Virginia and author of “Too Big to Jail,” said that BP was “asking taxpayers, in effect, to pay for the victim compensation fund it agreed to set up.”
LINK

So this is an incredibly good deal for companies which have to pay for wrongdoing. Not only do the company officers and owners generally avoid personal damages and/or prison time for misdeeds they even are able to avoid the full impact of the fine by getting the government (i.e. you) to help pay for it. Often they can get the fine or settlement reduced on appeal. It might not be such a great deal for you or for the rest of society. The person who incurred the cost and broke the law/rules is not the one who is paying the cost. That seems to violate basic fairness. This is another example of how our tax code and public perception of welfare leeches. This is why as we recently discussed one has to be careful when one reads about this or that inner-city ghetto or poor trailer park person "cheating" the system out of a few hundred dollars each month. Your disgust or contempt should be saved for the big dog who's crapping on the floor, not the little puppy. Corporations are cheating the government out of BILLIONS. Technically I shouldn't even use the term "cheating" as this is all quite legal. Moral outrage doesn't trump law. The fact that these tax code provisions are still in place proves the amount of power that corporations and their armies of lobbyists and attorneys can bring to bear. A great many of these mega corporations don't pay many, if any income taxes in the first place so this is just par for the course. Until enough people get angry enough to demand changes, these policies will continue. But to demand change you have to know what's going on behind closed doors and out in the open. This is why it's so important to read, inform yourself and get politically active.