To eHarmony: Grow a Pair

In case you didn't hear about this, someone sued eHarmony.com a few years ago for not catering to his particular taste of partners. He couldn't find suitable partners on the site and thus declared the site was discriminating against him. I'm sure you've already assumed, but I'll clarify here: the man is gay. He was complaining about not having the option to be matched with other gay men.

Fast forward to this past week. eHarmony has settled this case. That's right - they sold out. The end result is that they have to pay the legal fees and other expenses of the attorney general's office ($50,000) as well as $5,000 to the man himself - let me guess - for pain and suffering. In addition, the business has to create a new website that solely caters to the gay and lesbian community; they're calling it Compatible Partners. They're giving the first 10,000 users free accounts and will be kept completely separate (database, etc.) from their regular site.

Now, on the surface, this issue seems like a gay issue. Don't be fooled - it's not. In a very real sense, this is just one more case of a company being trapped into making a so-called politically correct decision simply not to offend anyone. I contend that their decision was weak-kneed and will only set a precedent that need not be set.

Let's just forget about the whole gay aspect. It's not relevant to what happened. What essentially happened here is that an individual decided to go to a business and be served, only to discover the business didn't serve anything he liked. Normal people would go to another business that does serve what they like. Not so with Mr. I'm-a-minority (be it religion, race, sexual orientation, language). Mr. I.A.M. feels put down and trounced upon and wants every place he chooses to do business with to cater to HIM. Unfortunately for us without a minority mindset, I.A.M. wins more and more in our court system.

In this particular case, the charge was ridiculous. eHarmony.com is a private business. As long as it doesn't break any laws it can do whatever it wants. And - here's the kicker - both the company and even the attorney general agreed that no laws were broken! So why settle?!? It baffles the mind. At least - the normal mind. Let's take this analogy. I'm a carnivore. I love meat. Let's say I'm walking in a shopping center and I see a vegan market store. We'll suspend reality here for a second and say I walk in to this store to purchase some meat. What do I find? Steaks? Hamburgers? Pork Chops? NO?!?!? How could they! They are discriminating against meat-eaters! I'LL SUE!!!

(You see how ridiculous it is when you remove the I.A.M. slant?)

Here's a thought: Let's say that eHarmony.com doesn't give in. I don't call that discrimination - I call it a business opportunity! If there are that many people interested in finding a gay partner online, then there should be websites devoted to it! If I were gay that's where I'd go! You see - that's one of the benefits of our country; if someone sees a need for a product/business/idea, then they can fill that void with something that consumers will purchase. In some cases they can create a market where none existed before.

I wish people who felt disenfranchised didn't always look to the courts to solve their problems. I'm not saying the courts are never an option, but it's not like there weren't other alternatives for the dude - there are websites that cater to just about every type of partner-interest one might have. Nobody was forcing him to use eHarmony. He chose to implicate this business - this private, law-abiding business - in his own little "I'm a victim"-mentality-induced crusade, and the company just gave up. The real crime here is that he should have never been allowed his day in court. That would have saved everybody some dough.

The real scoop - the real reason this was even pursued - was because eHarmony has long been the bane of the gay community. The site/company was founded by a former affiliate of Focus on the Family - an evangelical Christian, Dr. Neil Clark. He designed the site and their formulas specifically to match heterosexual couples. Since this suit in 2005, at least one more was launched last year in California. Same concept - same goal - same I.A.M. mentality. By the way - this one is a class action lawsuit, and even the attorney for the plaintiff says,

This lawsuit is "about changing the landscape and making a statement out there that gay people, just like heterosexuals, have the right and desire to meet other people with whom they can fall in love."

I don't agree with his comment about "everybody has the right...". Nobody has the right to meet anyone. They may have the desire, for sure, but they definitely don't have the right. I'm pretty sure that nowhere in the Constitution does it say, "We all have the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and to meet our future lover." Maybe I missed that day in Civics class. To be sure - it would be nice if every company you wanted to do business with catered to you, but that's just not how it works in this country. If enough people want a business to change, the business will change. Obviously, eHarmony didn't feel the need to change to cater to the gay community and were staying as is. Could they have made more money had they done so? Probably. But again, not enough people wanted that service from them, so they didn't feel the business need to change.

The irony of this is that now that eHarmony is in the game, they will undoubtedly take business away from existing sites that specifically designed themselves to cater to the gay community. They have been so successful with the hetero market, who's to say they won't be just as successful with their new venture? What one hand giveth, the other taketh away...

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go sue that damn vegan store for not selling sirloins.

Bastards.

Obama's no fool...

Earlier this week Obama met with Bush to discuss transition issues, etc. These type of talks are typically not public affairs and tend to be more private in nature. In other words, the media is not present behind these 'closed doors'. I say this because Obama staff broke that unwritten rule and leaked details to the press about the visit. However, this was a very clever move, even though it pisses me off.

During their talks, the issue of the auto-bailout came up and it was said that Obama pushed for the bailout to be passed, and Bush (who apparently is being resistant) asked for some things in return for his support; namely Democrat approval of the trade pact(s) with Columbia. Tough call for Obama - he backs (and is backed by) unions and labor forces which directly oppose said trade agreements with Columbia. They say of course that it is because of mistreatment of workers down there, but in reailty it has a lot more to do with fear of losing revenues, etc. to Columbia. Anyway, turns out it's not so tough a call for Obama after all. In a brilliant political move (whether by him or by a staffer) it's leaked that Bush is trying to horse-trade behind the scenes. What's the fallout?

1) Bush is made to look like he is not supportive of American laborers.
2) Obama can say (rather honestly), "Look I tried to get the bailout money and help the American work----SNORE...insert rhetoric here...SNORE--, but you know Bushie, he's stonewalling me until he gets what he wants."
3) Obama can bide his time if need be and wait until he's in office and then do whatever he wants anyway, while looking like he tried to 'cross the aisle'.
4) Bush's approval rating can dip even lower.(Is it at absolute zero yet?)

No, Obama's no fool, but the American people are. Most out there probably have no clue how politics work and that this 'horse-trading' is done each and every single day in Washington. It's how 'pork' even gets added to bills in the first place. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours; either now or later. How else can you explain NASCAR racing track owners getting millions in the much-talked-about bailout bill after it went through the Senate? I love NASCAR, but it has NOTHING to do with the financial meltdown in the banking industry.

Bush played the same game he's learned to play since entering Washington, but the public at large will despise him for it.

Brilliant move, Obama. Check and Mate.

Am I in the Twilight Zone?!

A few days ago I wrote a nice little fairy tale that most certainly did not have a fairy tale ending. It portrayed the current attitude in Washington toward corporate bailout, etc. It used the analogy of the money being candy, and that if you give in once, then everybody will come knocking.

Enter American Express. Yep, now they're knocking at the door. Though their requested amount is a "paltry" 3.5 bn dollars, they actually had to change their business definition just so they could qualify for bailout money. Yep, after an emergency ruling, the Fed now considers AMEX a "bank holding company" which entitles them to bailout dough. Which brings me to my first point, I now wish to be a bank holding company.

However, that's not the main thing I wanted to vent about. I wanted to vent about the very high probability that we will bailout the auto industry as well. Actually, that's not precisely accurate. We will only bailout the 3 automakers which happen to be in Detroit. And happen to be employed by union workers. And happen to be losing money by the truckloads. And happen to make crappy cars. That's right - Toyota, Nissan, Honda, etc. are doing just dandy other parts of the country and there's nary a union worker in sight.

So the "Big 3" want bailout money (or more in the case of GM and Ford, who have already received 25 bn that they burned through in a couple months), and it seems at this point e they will likely receive it. But should they? Should we bail out every failing industry? How about the film industry? It's been hurting for a while; perhaps they're entitled to some help as well? After all, there are hundreds of thousands of jobs at stake in that industry as well. I'm not heartless. I do understand that many jobs will likely be lost if any or all of the Big 3 would go bankrupt. But let's play devil's advocate: if they DO get the bailout money, will they still be able to keep all those jobs? The answer may surprise you: probably not.

Rewind nearly 30 years ago to another government bailout of Chrysler. There is a common myth that this government bailout gave the company a leg to stand on and they bounced back from near death to become successful yet again. However, let's look at the facts. Despite the money being intended to keep the company from going bankrupt and laying off workers, they STILL laid off nearly HALF of its employees. Estimates at the time figured that these losses were comparable to what would have happened had the company actually gone into Chapter 11. So the bailout essentially failed at its main intent. How about bankruptcy? It's true that it never went into Chapter 11, but it essentially went through all the motions, completely screwing creditors in the process. In some cases it was able to pay off hundreds of millions of dollars of loans at 30 cents on the dollar. Sweet deal for the shareholders which would have lost everything had they gone bankrupt. Here's a great article that details the ordeal from a 1983 perspective (isn't the Internet great?).

http://www.heritage.org/research/regulation/bg276.cfm

The two quotes I especially liked that are very pertinent today are:

Confronting the Chrysler myths with Chrysler facts reveals Chrysler's true financial condition and the real impact of those federal guarantees. It shows that if the bailout is indeed the model for an American industrial policy the consequences could be disastrous.

and

When Chrysler was on the verge of bankruptcy in 1979, the marketplace was signaling that the slackening automobile market would only support three U.S. car manufacturers. By granting the Chrysler loan guarantees, Congress ignored that signal. If Chrysler survives, it will probably mean that the shrinking automobile market will be shared by four ailing domestic automakers, rather than the two or three relatively healthy car manufacturers that would have emerged had Chrysler been allowed to go into formal bankruptcy.

Get your damn heads in the game, Washington. If a company is doomed to fail, then let it fail. Don't try to prop it up with my tax dollar when it should fall. You know, there's a nice legal entity for dealing with a failing company that handles creditors, shareholders, and typically, management as well. It's called Chapter 11. Let these companies go bankrupt. The creditors will lose some, the shareholders will lose a lot, the management will be recycled, and the company can refocus and start over. The taxpayers? It won't cost us a dime.

Farmers burn their fields to replenish the nutrients in the soil so they can reuse it. Steel is tempered with intense heat to make it stronger. If these auto companies rise from their own ashes they will be better for it. If they don't, then why would we have wanted to prop them up to begin with?

A Tale of Children and their Candy

Once upon a time there was a family, the Publics. The Publics had a little boy named Bear. Bear was Stearn, but boy did Bear love candy. LOVED it. Especially those gold foil wrapped ones. Anyway, Bear wasn't very good with his candy and finally got to the point where he had very little candy left.

Bear cried when he got home, "MOMMY!!! I NEED MORE CANDY!!"

Mommy came in the room. "Bear? What's wrong dear? What did you do with all the candy you had?" Bear replied, "I don't have it anymore. I had lots, and was even holding some of the other kids' candy too. But you know how I love it so much, and I ate it all! Now everyone wants their candy back and I don't have it! They're gonna beat me up!" Mommy deliberated on the issue and finally decided to give in and give Bear the candy.

A few days later, the Public twins Fannie and Freddie were found crying in their room. Mommy came running up the stairs, "What's wrong children?" "We don't have any more candy!" they replied in unison. "Let me guess," Mommy said, "if you don't get any more candy you'll get beat up?"

They looked at each other. "How'd you know, Mommy?" "How many pieces do you need to not get beat up?" Mommy said. Again they looked at each other. Fannie said, "We need 100 billion pieces of candy. Each."

Mommy (whose name was Connie, short for Congressa) shook her head and sighed. Just at that time, Daddy (whose name was John Q.) walked into the room. "What's the problem, Dear?" "Oh, John. The twins are saying they need more candy." John glared, "Listen, I'm still upset about the twins lying about how much candy they had a few months ago." "I know, I know," Mommy pleaded. "But I'm sure this time will be different, and we can trust them again." John was firm, "I still say no." Mommy grew furious, "Well, I don't care what you say! You don't care about the well-being of our children anymore! I'm giving them the candy - every single last piece!" With that, she slammed the door on him, leaving John in the hall.

A few days later John was walking through the kitchen when he saw Mommy filling their other son crAIG's backpack full of candy. "What is that for?" he asked. "I don't want to hear it, John! This is our son we're talking about!" "But crAIG hasn't even come asking for candy yet..." "This is a precautionary measure, John. If I don't give him this candy he might get beat up one day! I can't see my boy get hurt!"

The next day Daddy noticed some papers on the dining room table. Upon closer inspection, he saw that it was a receipt for 700 billion pieces of candy. "Connie! Get in here now!" She came in defiantly with her head held high. "What is the meaning of this!?!?" John said, his face turning red. She answered, "I've done what needed to be done. You'll have to trust me. I wanted to give enough candy to all the children in the neighborhood so that they wouldn't beat each other up and they would start being friendly again," she answered calmly. "But where in the world did you get the money to pay for this?!?" he said. "It wasn't a big deal, You had plenty of money in your wallet." At this point John was ready to strangle his wife. "Connie - don't you see what your rashness has done? When you give a child candy when they ask for it, they're going to ask for more. When you give them more, they're going to ask for even more. Then other kids in the neighborhood will want the same candy that you're giving the kids. Don't you see the pattern?" Connie just stood there dumbfounded.

At precisely that moment, some neighborhood kids showed up in the driveway. The triplets, G.M., Fordy, and Chryssy all filed inside. "So, uh...we heard you had some candy?"

As Connie smiled at them with a wink, John sighed and buried his face in his hands, longing for a divorce and wishing for a new wife.