Thought Experiment Time

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Thinking of trying something a little different today - I'm sharing this for a specific reason, and not because I necessarily want to discuss it specifically, since I know this probably isn't going to be the thing that changes many people's minds. Regardless, this story stuns me:

The object under discussion is “Canyon,” a masterwork of 20th-century art created by Robert Rauschenberg that Mrs. Sonnabend’s children inherited when she died in 2007.

Because the work, a sculptural combine, includes a stuffed bald eagle, a bird under federal protection, the heirs would be committing a felony if they ever tried to sell it. So their appraisers have valued the work at zero.

But the Internal Revenue Service takes a different view. It has appraised “Canyon” at $65 million and is demanding that the owners pay $29.2 million in taxes.

This story is amazing for so many reasons, but the reason I share it is because it hits so many of my personal hot buttons all at the same time:

* It touches upon my hatred of the estate tax.
* It touches upon my hatred of the IRS/bureaucracy in general.
* It touches upon my hatred of endangered species laws.

Now, I *highly* doubt there will be anyone here that read this and will change their minds on any of these issues. What I'm curious about is whether there have been news stories over the years that have hit so many of your buttons at one time? What were they? How did they make you feel? What part of it was worst for you reading it? Bonus points if you experienced it yourself.

Hopefully we can keep this light.

This is how you do it

[dwer.livejournal.com]

http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/20/3171590/lenovo-ceo-worker-3-million-bonus

Lenovo CEO distributes $3 million personal bonus to production-line workers, other junior-level employees
After Lenovo posted extremely healthy financials back in May, it provided CEO Yang Yuanqing with a $3 million bonus for doing such a good job. There's nothing particularly notable about a CEO receiving performance-related bonuses, but what is unusual is how Yang spent the money. Rather than adding it to his multi-million dollar salary, Yang distributed the bonus among junior-level employees. Some 10,000 receptionists, production-line workers, and assistants received an average bonus of around $314 each.

The article goes on to note that $314 is nearly a month's salary for a lot of factory workers in Shenzhen.

How ironic is it that a CEO of a company in a supposedly socialist country that doesn't give a damn about the individual citizens ends up recognizing that he depends on the workers at his company to perform at such a rate that he gets a 20% bonus to the point where he simply gives it to them? I'm sure that there are US CEOs who split their bonuses among their workers, although I can't think of any. It sure does reflect badly on JP Morgan and Barclay's doesn't it, tho?

To me, this is where corporate mindsets need to go. Realizing that the workers are key to actually getting anything done is something that I think the US and much of the western world has lost. I hope that more CEOs recognize the gauntlet that Yang has thrown down and take it up themselves.

Laws and freedom.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Perhaps some of you have seen the independent documentary film The Elephant in the Living Room. It is a documentary-type film about exotic animal ownership in the United States. I won't go into the details of the movie, since I don't want to spoil it for anyone who has Netflix and wants to stream it. I will warn you, however, that for certain mileages of people out there, the movie will ruin your day. My personal reactions to elements in the film included: light-headedness, horror, disgust, anger, profound sadness and an indescribable feeling that I don't know what to do with.

About exotic animal ownership: What I find ridiculous about a lot of the lax laws in this country about exotic animals, is that is is harder to bring in fruits, vegetables or grains across the national borders, than it is to find say, a lion. This strikes me as terribly off. Why is it that we have very little issues with protecting our agricultural bio-integrity, but when it comes to freaking lions, it's all "controversial".

Florida is currently the new home of thousands of exotic snakes, destroying, altering and generally screwing up the eco-system. Why? Because evidently we care more about the sanctity of our amber waves of grain than we do our own wildlife, or our own children.

Me, personally, feel that if people insist on keeping exotic animal ownership legal, we should not respond in any way to loose exotic animals. If we want to allow them (whether or not we own them), the next time a lion gets loose, you're on your own. They will get out, they will eat your babies, and we wouldn't spend a dime of public money protecting anyone from logic.

What say you?