Swiss Mistake
The recent news over the Swiss public's misgivings is a big surprise. My perception of Switzerland had always been one of a content, well off society. Apparently I am mistaken. This is quite a blow against millionaires around the world seeing how Switzerland is a notorious tax haven. It's hard not to see the such an event as evidence of a possible Marxist style proletarian uprising. It's possible that this could lead to similar declarations of angst around the world. If a country like Switzerland, not exactly known for having a rebellious people; can go to such lengths then why couldn't the U.S. as well? If I was a corporate CEO anywhere around the world and was accepting a form of "Abzockerei", I would start looking over my shoulder. There have already been tensions over big name CEOs rewarding themselves and their cronies in the U.S. Surely the memory enragement over bailed out companies giving their executives massive bonuses during the '08 financial crisis has not yet faded? Although these tensions have simmered quite a bit I bet some major companies will be keeping their executive's paychecks away from the public eye until Switzerland has calmed down some.
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Twitter IPO
The recent Twitter IPO has caused a lot of excitement recently and for good cause. It's now been a while since Facebook's dramatic IPO, and I think that played a big part in the stir surrounding Twitter. People were eager to compare the two entrances to the stock market and see who would come out on top. Although it is hard to compare at this point, considering that Facebook's stock has now matured a bit and Twitter's stock is still so young; it certainly seems that Twitter has some serious potential in the market. The stock skyrocketed after the IPO, and although it will probably taper slightly it will still be well above it's opening price. Twitter has been criticized for setting such a low initial price, which caused them to miss out on possible money. After watching Facebook's IPO I find it hard to criticize considering how much of a drop Facebook's stock experienced. I'd say Twitter had a much more successful entrance to the market, however I don't believe it will last. I never had much faith in Twitter's business model because of it's meager expansion opportunity. Twitter's network of social media is inherently single focused with its140 character messages, as opposed to Facebook which is takes a "jack of all trades" approach to networking. After the initial few months of trading, this could lead to several more disappointing quarters from Twitter and a drop in stock price. Only time will tell though.
The recent Twitter IPO has caused a lot of excitement recently and for good cause. It's now been a while since Facebook's dramatic IPO, and I think that played a big part in the stir surrounding Twitter. People were eager to compare the two entrances to the stock market and see who would come out on top. Although it is hard to compare at this point, considering that Facebook's stock has now matured a bit and Twitter's stock is still so young; it certainly seems that Twitter has some serious potential in the market. The stock skyrocketed after the IPO, and although it will probably taper slightly it will still be well above it's opening price. Twitter has been criticized for setting such a low initial price, which caused them to miss out on possible money. After watching Facebook's IPO I find it hard to criticize considering how much of a drop Facebook's stock experienced. I'd say Twitter had a much more successful entrance to the market, however I don't believe it will last. I never had much faith in Twitter's business model because of it's meager expansion opportunity. Twitter's network of social media is inherently single focused with its140 character messages, as opposed to Facebook which is takes a "jack of all trades" approach to networking. After the initial few months of trading, this could lead to several more disappointing quarters from Twitter and a drop in stock price. Only time will tell though.
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Monster Cash
Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster and the Chupacabra; some of the most recognizable pieces of modern folklore. Are they creatures simply myths that people have created to explain phenomena? Could they exist? Certainly the possibility exists that they are out there, and this exactly what the perpetuators of these creatures want you to believe. Even though only questionable evidence for these creatures has been found, millions still believe in their existence so wholeheartedly that the tourist industry has used them for years to attract business. In fact, these monsters are seen as important sources of incomes for the local tourist economies. Even though the chances of anybody visiting one of these spots and sighting a mythical creature are less than one in a million, people still have no issue making profit from the opportunity. Although we cannot definitively say whether or not some of these creatures exist, it is safe to say that people are being ripped off by this industry. Think of all the people each year who visit Loch Ness with a tiny glimmer of hope that they might spot a strange figure in the water only to leave with a hundred dollars worth of Nessie memorabilia. Although one could point the finger at the tourist industry, I think the blame should be more focused on the "monster hunters" and adventurers who feed the frenzy. Every time somebody tries to prove the existence of the Loch Ness monster or Big Foot, it stirs even more commotion around the subject and fuels even more tourism. At the end of the day though, I have admit that all of the mystique that the industry creates around these monsters is fascinating. Despite the moral dilemmas it is certainly entertaining.
Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster and the Chupacabra; some of the most recognizable pieces of modern folklore. Are they creatures simply myths that people have created to explain phenomena? Could they exist? Certainly the possibility exists that they are out there, and this exactly what the perpetuators of these creatures want you to believe. Even though only questionable evidence for these creatures has been found, millions still believe in their existence so wholeheartedly that the tourist industry has used them for years to attract business. In fact, these monsters are seen as important sources of incomes for the local tourist economies. Even though the chances of anybody visiting one of these spots and sighting a mythical creature are less than one in a million, people still have no issue making profit from the opportunity. Although we cannot definitively say whether or not some of these creatures exist, it is safe to say that people are being ripped off by this industry. Think of all the people each year who visit Loch Ness with a tiny glimmer of hope that they might spot a strange figure in the water only to leave with a hundred dollars worth of Nessie memorabilia. Although one could point the finger at the tourist industry, I think the blame should be more focused on the "monster hunters" and adventurers who feed the frenzy. Every time somebody tries to prove the existence of the Loch Ness monster or Big Foot, it stirs even more commotion around the subject and fuels even more tourism. At the end of the day though, I have admit that all of the mystique that the industry creates around these monsters is fascinating. Despite the moral dilemmas it is certainly entertaining.
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Spy Game
The United States does not by any means claim to spy on its allies, which is why it is such big news that the NSA has been caught doing exactly that. Although president Obama has yet to speak about the alleged tapping of chancellor Merkel's cell phone, it is safe to assume that these allegations are true. After witnessing the massive breach of trust witnessed in the recent IRS scandal I am beginning to feel less and less secure about the United States government. Scandals like these make our government out to be a scruple less hound that has no reserves about lying through its teeth. Considering that Germany is a well established ally, world power, and has even shown interest in anti-spying pacts it is ghastly to consider that the NSA was eavesdropping on Merkel. I have never been one to trust shady, three-letter acronym, government organizations, (especially after binge watching a bunch of Burn Notice) and while incidents such as this reinforce my opinion even more; I wish I could say it surprised me. The simple fact is that the United States government has a serious control problem. If our government does not have control over anything, then it at least wants to know everything about it. This obsession is what causes international fiasco that the NSA and CIA have come to be known for. Perhaps if our officials could learn to trust our allies our government would not have made such a fool of itself. I highly doubt that this mistake will alter the U.S.'s policy on spying at all. Should an type of anti-spying pact be formulated I would merely expect our level of spying to be cut down, but certainly not extinguished. Perhaps I just like to think that our government in more conniving than it actually is, however I think the NSA would have trouble letting go.
The United States does not by any means claim to spy on its allies, which is why it is such big news that the NSA has been caught doing exactly that. Although president Obama has yet to speak about the alleged tapping of chancellor Merkel's cell phone, it is safe to assume that these allegations are true. After witnessing the massive breach of trust witnessed in the recent IRS scandal I am beginning to feel less and less secure about the United States government. Scandals like these make our government out to be a scruple less hound that has no reserves about lying through its teeth. Considering that Germany is a well established ally, world power, and has even shown interest in anti-spying pacts it is ghastly to consider that the NSA was eavesdropping on Merkel. I have never been one to trust shady, three-letter acronym, government organizations, (especially after binge watching a bunch of Burn Notice) and while incidents such as this reinforce my opinion even more; I wish I could say it surprised me. The simple fact is that the United States government has a serious control problem. If our government does not have control over anything, then it at least wants to know everything about it. This obsession is what causes international fiasco that the NSA and CIA have come to be known for. Perhaps if our officials could learn to trust our allies our government would not have made such a fool of itself. I highly doubt that this mistake will alter the U.S.'s policy on spying at all. Should an type of anti-spying pact be formulated I would merely expect our level of spying to be cut down, but certainly not extinguished. Perhaps I just like to think that our government in more conniving than it actually is, however I think the NSA would have trouble letting go.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Ethnic Riots and Russia
After recent riots in Russia, based on the premise of a man from the Caucasus region stabbing another Russian; it is difficult not to claim that there will be a significant impact in Russia. While this riot may have been relatively minor, it was fairly isolated and was quickly put down; it may represent feelings that have been repressed amidst the Russian population. This is not unlike ethnic/race based conflict that has been seen in other parts of the world. One example would be the Newark race riots of the 1960s which, although less minor, ultimately had a significant affect on domestic policy in the United States. Should more riots sprout up in the wake of this, we can certainly say that this issue has struck a chord in Russian society. Somehow the animosity between Russians and the various other migrants has to be put to rest. The only question is what type of role the government will take in ending this feud. As noted by Alexey Navalny. there is a laundry list of government institutions that could accept blame for this riot. So, if there is so much blame to go around, then is it possible to create effective, civil reform without uprooting the whole system? Based on the effectiveness of the United State's Civil Rights Act of 1964 there is certainly the possibility that legislation could help. The fact is though, that legislation, even with proper enforcement, will do little good unless the mindset of the people change. There is no doubt that the United States has become a more tolerant as a nation since 1964 which is why legislation was effective. In order for the tension to ebb, Russia must not only legislate against ethnic prejudices but also advocate a change in the mindset of the people. The Russian government could offer seats of power to select, elite migrants in order to improve trust between the natives and the migrants. Without a more tolerant and open-minded attitude, Russian officials will have no choice but to ban migrants. This scenario would be extremely disappointing and shed light on the current vulnerability of the human condition.
After recent riots in Russia, based on the premise of a man from the Caucasus region stabbing another Russian; it is difficult not to claim that there will be a significant impact in Russia. While this riot may have been relatively minor, it was fairly isolated and was quickly put down; it may represent feelings that have been repressed amidst the Russian population. This is not unlike ethnic/race based conflict that has been seen in other parts of the world. One example would be the Newark race riots of the 1960s which, although less minor, ultimately had a significant affect on domestic policy in the United States. Should more riots sprout up in the wake of this, we can certainly say that this issue has struck a chord in Russian society. Somehow the animosity between Russians and the various other migrants has to be put to rest. The only question is what type of role the government will take in ending this feud. As noted by Alexey Navalny. there is a laundry list of government institutions that could accept blame for this riot. So, if there is so much blame to go around, then is it possible to create effective, civil reform without uprooting the whole system? Based on the effectiveness of the United State's Civil Rights Act of 1964 there is certainly the possibility that legislation could help. The fact is though, that legislation, even with proper enforcement, will do little good unless the mindset of the people change. There is no doubt that the United States has become a more tolerant as a nation since 1964 which is why legislation was effective. In order for the tension to ebb, Russia must not only legislate against ethnic prejudices but also advocate a change in the mindset of the people. The Russian government could offer seats of power to select, elite migrants in order to improve trust between the natives and the migrants. Without a more tolerant and open-minded attitude, Russian officials will have no choice but to ban migrants. This scenario would be extremely disappointing and shed light on the current vulnerability of the human condition.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
The Next Golden Age of Television
The past 15 years of television have been undeniably remarkable. In this time we have seen the redundantly loveable sitcom style of the 80s and 90s be tossed aside. Premium and standard cable channels everywhere are now airing long, intricate series based on complex characters that deal with deep-cutting societal issues. However, it is not hard to see that we are reaching an end of an era. With the legendary Sopranos long gone, and the end of AMC's Breaking Bad; it is not hard to tell that a change is coming. What exactly will this change encompass? Due to the immense popularity of HBO's Game of Thrones, I highly doubt that there will be a departure from the long, sprawling storylines that have come to be commonplace on cable. The way the shows are viewed will change. Since the demise of Oz, The Sopranos, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, more and more Americans have forsaken cable in lieu of a more convenient method: the internet. Netflix, Hulu, and various other streaming sites have become increasingly popular. This can be seen again by examining Games of Thrones; which has arguably the strongest underground following of any show ever. Among other accolades, it was estimated to be the most pirated show of 2012. Despite HBO's knowledge of this illicit activity it does little to shut it down because of the hype it creates around the show. Such easy access is key to determining television's new direction, because many of these shows are not even being viewed on televisions anymore. Without ratings and standards to adhere to, the internet allows for even greater creativity as shown by Netflix's recent original series' House of Cards and Orange is the New Black. While House of Cards makes use of the typical male anti-hero seen in The Sopranos and Breaking Bad, Orange is the New Black projects clearly where I believe TV is headed. The show's crudeness is on par with HBO and Showtime, however it's lead character, a woman criminal; is very new. Not to mention the scenarios that take place around her at an all female penitentiary. While still controversial, the internet allows Netflix and other production companies to put out whatever they choose for viewing without interference form cable companies. If Game of Thrones and Orange in the New Black are any indicators, then long, controversial plots viewed online are the next chapter in TV's history.
The past 15 years of television have been undeniably remarkable. In this time we have seen the redundantly loveable sitcom style of the 80s and 90s be tossed aside. Premium and standard cable channels everywhere are now airing long, intricate series based on complex characters that deal with deep-cutting societal issues. However, it is not hard to see that we are reaching an end of an era. With the legendary Sopranos long gone, and the end of AMC's Breaking Bad; it is not hard to tell that a change is coming. What exactly will this change encompass? Due to the immense popularity of HBO's Game of Thrones, I highly doubt that there will be a departure from the long, sprawling storylines that have come to be commonplace on cable. The way the shows are viewed will change. Since the demise of Oz, The Sopranos, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, more and more Americans have forsaken cable in lieu of a more convenient method: the internet. Netflix, Hulu, and various other streaming sites have become increasingly popular. This can be seen again by examining Games of Thrones; which has arguably the strongest underground following of any show ever. Among other accolades, it was estimated to be the most pirated show of 2012. Despite HBO's knowledge of this illicit activity it does little to shut it down because of the hype it creates around the show. Such easy access is key to determining television's new direction, because many of these shows are not even being viewed on televisions anymore. Without ratings and standards to adhere to, the internet allows for even greater creativity as shown by Netflix's recent original series' House of Cards and Orange is the New Black. While House of Cards makes use of the typical male anti-hero seen in The Sopranos and Breaking Bad, Orange is the New Black projects clearly where I believe TV is headed. The show's crudeness is on par with HBO and Showtime, however it's lead character, a woman criminal; is very new. Not to mention the scenarios that take place around her at an all female penitentiary. While still controversial, the internet allows Netflix and other production companies to put out whatever they choose for viewing without interference form cable companies. If Game of Thrones and Orange in the New Black are any indicators, then long, controversial plots viewed online are the next chapter in TV's history.
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
It is hard to believe that our government has been left no possible alternative than to shutdown. Understandably, the idea of breaching the debt ceiling is frightening as well, the idea that our government is technically "closed" at the moment is reassuring either. What I find most astounding is that Congress's salary has managed to be written into law, therefore Congress receives pay regardless of whether or not the government has shut down. Yet, it has not been written into law that congress must provide funding for our government. Political pressure is the only incentive Congress has right now to get the government back up and running, and scarily there are Tea party members willing to ride out a long shutdown just to make political gains. It should be criminal for politicians to use a shutdown as a negotiation strategy. At this time there are currently an extra 800,000 government workers who are unemployed, America's tourism industry is seriously hindered, and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention is stopping it's seasonal flu program. America is in a weakened state at the moment, and it is simply because Congress cannot pass a new stopgap that will not last even a year. What is the route of all of this chaos? The answer: A vast chasm in the Republican party. Several years ago the Tea Party mustered strong emotions from both Republicans and Democrats, and it still is doing so today. I don't believe that most Republicans believed just how serious the Tea Party was at the time of its conception, and it certainly has gown stronger and more conservative since then. Although I personally found myself agreeing with many Tea Party arguments, my personal opinion on the Party has shifted to one of disgust. Their cut-throat, uncooperative methods are not what America is looking for right now. This is a time where compromise is far more effective and achievable, and for Tea Party leaders to believe that the American public will put up with such extreme power plays is absurd. Americans will blame the Republican party for not being able to control their more extreme members, and they will take the blame for the shutdown. This will probably lead to the Republicans losing the House. Because of the Tea Party's efforts, I think it is safe to say that the Republican party will not being seeing very many votes in the next couple of elections.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)