Let me back up a few steps first. As you may have read, I’m not a fan of bullies. I abhor bullying in a school setting and I consider bullies in the workplace pathetic and contemptible. Football, boxing and the occasional Quentin Tarantino film notwithstanding, I’m deeply troubled by violence of any kind whether perpetrated against humans or animals. (I’m not a vegan but I’d be happy to have that discussion some other day.)

Among the many ways that so-called human beings inflict pain and psychological trauma on each other, rape, to me, is the most vile. There are countless reasons why a person might commit larceny but there’s only a single reason one rapes: an irresistible and incurable compulsion to control, humiliate and torment.

As the Catholic church has demonstrated so convincingly over the past several decades, sexual predators exist in every strata of society and as victims and their families are painfully aware, perpetrators are often among the inner circle. They’re neighbors, friends, co-workers, acquaintances and in the worst circumstances, they’re family.

As someone points out in “The Invisible War,” when the military is at its best, at it’s most optimal, it’s a single unit focused on a clearly defined set of goals with every member a valued and nurtured link in the chain. A family.

According to the film and backed up by the Department of Defense’s own statistics, America’s military family is the family most infected and infested by rape in the nation. A shocking number of women – and men – are raped or otherwise sexually assaulted every year in the military. According to the D.O.D., 19,000 sexual assaults occurred in 2010, a percentage point lower than were perpetrated in 2011. The film makes clear that the military’s attitude toward sexual assault is overwhelmingly to ‘just suck it up’ so it’s no surprise (or secret) that the vast majority of these incidents go unreported. Besides the military’s de facto acceptance of rape and sexual assault within its ranks, one consistent reason that so many attacks go unreported is the fact that often, the perpetrators are the victim’s next in command. Or they’re the perpetrator’s best friend and drinking buddy.

The system is so rigged, so consciously and appallingly blind to this epidemic of violence that it makes one wonder whether it’s time to put aside our otherwise solemn duty to honor the troops until they clean house and with extreme prejudice. For instance, in 2011, fewer than half of sexual assault cases that were  reported were considered “actionable” – a decrease of 22% from 2010 – and fewer than 8% of “actionable” cases went to trial. In an estimated 10% of cases that did go to trial, the accused were allowed to quit the military rather than face court martial which means they’re raping and sexually assaulting your family now.

The film has its share of well-meaning politicians who, since the Tailhook scandal, have held hearings, grandstanded, wrung their hands and promised to change things. Not surprisingly, they’ve all failed miserably. They are cowards.

Rape is worse than death. Many rape victims yearn for the relief of death. Over 2,800 people died on 9/11 which precipitated two wars that so far have resulted in the deaths of over 6,400 American troops. According to the film, 500,000 American service men and women have been raped or otherwise sexually assaulted by their fellow soldiers. Close to 20,000 just last year. Where’s the war against rape and sexual assault in the military?

Like many of us since 2001, I’ve honored our men and women in uniform. I’ve bought them drinks and meals and I’ve thanked them for their service. My father earned a Purple Heart during the Battle of the Bulge and that medal is something I’ve been proud of ever since I can remember. This Memorial Day weekend, though, as I watched reports of Fleet Week in New York City and flags being placed on graves at Arlington Cemetery and President Obama laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns, my thoughts were not of honor. Instead, they were polluted by thoughts of the abject terror felt by thousands of American soldiers every year as their ‘brothers’ grab them by the throat, invade their bodies and their minds and leave them panting for air and in lasting desperation for a way back to normal.

Every US service member is aware of the plague of rape and sexual assault among their ranks and an alarming number of them are, themselves, the perpetrators. These men are known to the brass and they’re known to their fellow soldiers yet the reign of terror – and it’s nothing less than that – goes on unabated. Year in, year out. And you know what? Once the rapists are discharged, whether honorably or otherwise, they become our rapists. Our sexual predators.

So next time you run into a service member on the street, or if you have a service member in your family, once you’ve clapped them on the back and shaken their hand and thanked them for helping end suffering in far flung corners of the world, ask them what they’ve done to end the suffering in their own barracks. Urge them to consider volunteering for a search and destroy mission to ferret out and eliminate the terrorists within their own unit. Ask them why it’s wrong for Sudanese and Kenyans and Ugandans to rape their women but it’s OK for a Sergeant in the US military to rape or sodomize a recruit.

“The Invisible War” presents all this and much more far better than I ever could here. In fact, it’s a masterfully shot and constructed film that keeps style appropriately far from substance. Not always easy business for a filmmaker. My only problem with the film is that Dick, no doubt in concert with the incredibly brave women – and one man – who were interviewed for the film and are helping promote it, has chosen to shield the rapists whose crimes are discussed. None of their names are disclosed in spite of the fact that one of them was actually promoted in the course of his investigation and continues to serve to this day. At the Q&A following the screening I volunteered to host a site outing these animals but my offer was not accepted. I make the offer again here.

Please make arrangements to see “The Invisible War” and if you can, take a service member with you. (According to the website, you can host your own screening.)

Light this fire for the 500,000.

The post US Service Members Sexually Assault a Fellow Soldier 25 Times a Day, Every Day of the Year appeared first on Light a Fire!.

As a result of an internal report made public this week, the GSA’s chief has resigned along with two key lieutenants and at least four other officials are at risk. The media’s been pounding the agency and the Obama administration all morning and Republicans wasted no time piling on.

The trip in question was a 5-day event for 300 people. That’s $2,742.50 per person or $548 per day. I’m not saying those numbers reflect well on government fiscal responsibility but $548/day including air travel, accommodations, all meals, entertainment and hours-long work sessions isn’t a terrible deal. Team-building (not to mention morale-building) is not a trivial matter, especially among large groups of people and particularly among a group like this whose minute-to-minute objective is to goad, encourage and force people to do more with less. Ironic, yes, but not without value. Besides, a few hundred bureaucrats returning to their desks a little less gray is unquestionably good for the country.

On the other hand, it’s been estimated that the unnecessary and fraudulently waged war in Iraq will cost America somewhere between $1-$3 trillion. On the low end, that’s over $3,225 per American citizen. (Of course, it will continue to take its toll in other ways for decades to come.)

Who’s been fired for that? Where’s the GSA report? Who do I talk to about getting my $3,225 back?

No one died as a result of the 2010 GSA team-building trip. In Iraq, over 4,400 Americans and more than 100,000 Iraqis died.

Then there’s Afghanistan.

And, by the way, who got fired for this and for all the billions in pork that Congress pisses away year after year after year?

My suggestion to the media and to Republicans is get your priorities straight. My suggestion to an “outraged” President Obama is save your outrage for your own deep failings thus far as President.

As for the rest of us, let’s try to light a fire today for something that actually matters.

The post Obama, Republicans & Media Outraged By GSA Vegas Excursion. (Get Over Yourselves.) appeared first on Light a Fire!.

Privacy is important and the fact that our so-called anonymous tracking information can relatively easily – and almost assuredly already has been or will be – associated with the individual user, is frightening and a bit scandalous. For me, though, any expectation of privacy and anonymity on the web went out the window years ago. I do all the obvious and some not-so-obvious stuff to protect what privacy may still be possible, but I hardly care what anyone knows about me. I have nothing to hide (well, almost nothing) and I decry online anonymity whenever possible for the insane volume of ugliness, inhumanity and pain it generates.

However…

You may already be aware of this, but Google now delivers a different set of results to each user no matter how exact the search words or phrases. With hundreds of millions of us relying so heavily on Google for nearly everything we know and believe about the world, the most alarming thing to me is that Google’s search algorithms no longer serve its users. Instead, they’re exclusively in service to the company’s paying customers, its advertisers.

(If you haven’t done it yet, try this: do two searches using Google. One should be your name and the other can be anything you want. Now, ask a couple of friends in other cities to do the same searches and send you the results.)

Google is a free, ad-supported service that earns many billions of dollars each year which used to be an awesome deal for everyone. Google was happy, their advertisers were happy and best of all, we were happy. We willingly turned a blind eye to the fact that Google’s billions were being earned off our backs; off the bread crumbs we left behind as we traveled the path so expertly blazed for us by Brin and Page across our digital lives.

Unfortunately, though certainly not unexpectedly, Google then went the way of brick and mortar robber barons of old. They decided that nothing would trump revenue, earnings and profit. They sold their soul to the devil, a transaction that can actually work out quite nicely when appropriately applied. For instance, when Robert Johnson sold his soul to the devil, everyone came away a winner. Mr. Johnson was lifted out of poverty and obscurity, musicians the world over were emboldened and inspired by Johnson’s mastery of the blues, billions of people’s lives were enriched by the music and the devil’s been preoccupied with blues music now since 1938 leaving the job of making people blue to Islamic terrorists, North Korean dictators and Carl Rove.

On the other hand, when billionaires sell their soul to the devil, no one gets a very good deal. The billionaires get something they don’t need and can’t use: more billions. The devil gets a couple of worthless souls and likely sticks ‘em on a back shelf in a dark room somewhere far from the gorgeous blues music wafting through most of the rest of the empire. The shareholders get a portfolio bump but their Google results suffer disproportionately.

Then there’s us, the hundreds of millions of users who made it possible for the company to thrive in the first place. What do we get? In exchange for ever more and more deeply personal data, we get a search engine that no longer returns the freshest, most accurate results. Instead, they’re (very poorly) tailored to each of us individually. Google’s algorithms look at our search words and phrases, they match those words and phrases to the crap that their advertisers are hawking, they mix it all up with what they think we want to see based on what they’ve ‘learned’, intuited and guessed about who we are, what we like, what we’re curious about – and now who we know – and they spit out a set of results that are guaranteed to be less fresh, less relevant and less valuable than ever before.

In other words, they’re using us – the folks who know so little about stuff that we’re constantly asking Google for the answer – as the basis *for* the answer. How insane is that? Rather than possibly expanding our horizons; exposing us to something or someone new and interesting, they’re dumbing down the results. Google claims this is a good thing. They claim the results are more relevant to each individual user. More to the point, they say the ads are custom tailored to our needs and desires.

First, I don’t need to be reminded that they’ve learned as much as they have about my needs and desires. Second, they don’t know me and they never will. Brilliantly, though, by being so public about all this and taking a bunch of barely-stinging surface heat from the media and privacy advocates about how expansive and granular the information is that Google is collecting, they’re cementing in their advertisers’ minds that their inflated ad rates for so-called targeted advertising are actually a bargain.

That’s bad news for us today but it’s going to be even worse news for Google tomorrow. Personally, I’ve almost completed a transition away from Gmail which has been my default email address for years. (I’m using mostly a privately hosted email server but even Hotmail/Microsoft is a much better bet than Google. Having recently worked there on a year-long contract, I was surprised and impressed with their emphasis on privacy. Nothing’s perfect but today, Gmail is bottom of the barrel from a privacy standpoint.) I’ve rarely used Chrome and never will again. As for search engines, I still use Google as a back-up, but my default now is DuckDuckGo which doesn’t collect, share or pass along any personal information, including your search words which are very definitely personal information. Another alternative is Sartpage.com which acts as a proxy, passing your search along anonymously to Google. Here’s more information about anonymous search.

Google is a behemoth, but like the dinosaur, even seemingly invincible creatures can and do succumb. In fact, it’s a virtual lock that both Google and Facebook (an ever more troubling parasite) will both – sooner than later – be made irrelevant. In each case, the reason will be greed. For Google and Facebook, the only meaningful amount of money is more money.

To paraphrase Edward Everett Horton from one of my favorite (and so relevant to this conversation) movies of all time, “Holiday,” my dad made me promise to quit after my first billion.

Light a fire for appropriate levels of greed by de-Googling today!

(Caveat Emptor – Next time I have something to sell, I’ll almost certainly be using Google to help do it.)

The post Google Worse Than Evil: Just Plain Bad appeared first on Light a Fire!.

Here’s Meryl’s post on IndieWire. My reply follows…

Hi Meryl -

Nice to hear from you albeit in defense of bullying by those who happen to give to charity.

My post wasn’t intended to tear Harvey down or to infer that he’s never done a good work. In fact, I’ve often written and spoken about the fact that he and Bob have worked hard for and deserve all of the success they’ve enjoyed over the years. My point – maybe you want to re-read the post for clarification – was that the imminent release of “Bully” presents Harvey a unique opportunity to come clean where it counts – in public – about his long history of bullying which would be one of his most selfless and meaningful good works. Instead, I guess he’s taking the opposite tack and leaving it to the troops to defend a career of bad behavior by throwing out a smokescreen of good deeds.

I well remember incidents where he’d beat someone down and then send them flowers along with an apology. Handing someone a bouquet of flowers is a generous and lovely impulse but don’t you agree that the gesture becomes somewhat tainted by the beatdown that precipitated an otherwise thoughtful gift?

Are you saying that the ends somehow justify the means. (No pun intended.) History is full of powerful people that throughout their lifetimes accomplished wonderful things for many people but who, along the way, raped and pillaged and committed other horrible acts without contrition. (No, haters, I’m not saying Harvey’s ever literally raped anyone.)

This has nothing to do with bitterness, Meryl. Am I tearing Harvey down by shining a light on the very clear irony of the moment and suggesting that he make the most of a rare moment and come out of the closet – publicly – as other powerful people have done in the course of history – thereby leveraging his contrition as a way of broadening out and deepening the conversation which will inevitably result in many, many more people seeing the film?

Yes, I’ve written about Harvey in the past and it’s never exclusively been to sing his praises. There are countless others, yourself, for instance, who are motivated to do that and have ad nauseum. As a staunch supporter of independent films for decades, when I point out how easily Harvey will claim to a national TV audience – as he did a few weeks ago – to have “made” rather than distributed “My Left Foot,” am I tearing him down or simply setting the record straight and giving credit where credit is actually due. Miramax did a brilliant job releasing “My Left Foot” but I guess Harvey, like all bullies, has such low self esteem that he can’t help but grab for more credit. More acclaim.

No, my post wasn’t about Harvey, it was about what I assume is a monumentally valuable and timely film that, yes, everyone should see. I’m simply suggesting a strategy for realizing that very worthy goal. Saying ‘watch this movie, it’s important’ doesn’t carry nearly the same weight as saying ‘watch this movie, I’ve been there, I’ve lived it, I’ve been the Bully and I regret it.’ I don’t know the answer offhand, but how many films, including some from Harvey himself, scream out ‘based on a true story’? Why do they do that? Why make that claim early and often in the marketing? It’s because it tends to connect with folks more viscerally and it helps personalize it in a way that leads to a broader and more powerful want-to-see factor. Same thing here, Meryl.

I’m not bitter. I’m just someone who believes that bullying is among the most destructive acts that one human being can inflict on another. It can be devastating. It lingers and festers and affects the bullied their whole lives. I had a conversation with my sister about this yesterday and she reluctantly dredged up what I’d consider a typical, perhaps even trivial-sounding incident of being bullied in grade school. Decades later that incident remains tattooed on her psyche. Just as the multitude of bullying incidents that occurred in the hallways of Miramax will never be forgotten by Harvey’s and Bob’s victims.

I bullied someone in grade school once and hated myself for it. Luckily, my victim confronted me about it years later and I had the opportunity to apologize. Here’s Harvey’s opportunity to not only apologize to everyone he’s ever bullied, but to serve the film and the issue at the same time. Nothing will drive more people into the theater to see “Bully” than for Harvey Weinstein to stand up in front of the world, in front of all his powerful and celebrated friends and business partners, in front of all the bullies and potential bullies of the world and their victims, and say enough is enough.

This time Harvey, you can do well by doing good and in doing so, you’re sure to make the world and the lives of many thousands of children a better place.

Come on Harvey, what do you say?

Btw, Meryl, my charitable contributions can hardly compare to those made by Harvey. He and Bob have made enormous sums of money over the years and I have not. I do what I can, though, and thanks for asking.

The post Meryl Poster’s Defense Of Harvey Weinstein’s History Of Bullying appeared first on Light a Fire!.

In the unnatural world – you know, the one we humans live in with our perversely outsized and underutilized brains – bullying is one of the most insidious and detestable realities. There’s nothing good or right or natural in human bullying, not for the past several thousand years anyway.

Just like hatred and intolerance, bullying is a learned behavior and in my experience, one’s home is where all bullies are schooled. Once instilled in a child’s psychological makeup, it’s virtually impossible to unlearn without intense family counseling where both parents and all siblings are fully engaged and committed to the process – and how often does that happen?

So a bully is nearly always a bully for life. Once they’re out of school, their bullying continues within their own homes – where they pass the behavior on to yet another generation – and it wafts through their social circles and work environments. Sometimes it’s called domestic violence, sometimes workplace harassment but the root cause is a lifetime of untreated, unacknowledged bullying. Unfortunately, adults who bully are as unlikely to be confronted and taken to task as child bullies.

Back in 1986 I fell in with two of the most unrepentant bullies I’d ever met. They’ve famously bullied their staffs and their business partners and like most adult bullies, they’ve rarely if ever been called on it. In fact, I’ve so often heard it laughed off or even exploited by outsiders that, just like Rick Santorum, it makes me want to throw up. Now, I’m not saying it’s impossible for a bully to reform, but Harvey and Bob have done so well for themselves pushing people around I find it hard to believe that they’ve given it up.

However…

Last April, The Weinstein Company acquired Lee Hirsch’s “The Bully Project,” now titled simply “Bully.” Was it a hopeful sign that the Weinsteins went after Bully? Had they seen the error of their ways and now wanted to give something back besides derision and contempt? Or was it simply the definition of irony?

In any case, as you may have read, the MPAA recently handed the film – and the Weinstein marketing department – an ‘R’ rating. Last week, Harvey and Alex Libby, one of the bullied kids from the film, appealed the ruling but were denied. TWC is ‘threatening’ to release the film unrated which could seriously undermine their effort to reach the widest possible audience since NATO has now notified the company that if Bully goes out unrated, it will proactively ask theaters to enforce an NC-17 standard on the film which would mean no one under 18 admitted even *with* an adult. (In typical Harvey bluster, he responded by ‘threatening’ to take a leave of absence from the MPAA – an organization he doesn’t belong to.)

Prior to the appeal and according to Reuters, Harvey issued the following statement to the MPAA:

“As a father of four, I worry every day about bullying; it’s a serious and ever-present concern for me and my family. I want every child, parent, and educator in America to see ‘Bully,’ so it is imperative for us to gain a PG-13 rating. It’s better that children see bad language than bad behavior, so my wish is that the MPAA considers the importance of this matter as we make this appeal.”

I hate bullying and always have. I also have an abiding contempt for hypocrisy. If Harvey has, in fact, reformed, he needs to come out and say so publicly. He needs to own his past behavior, admit to his addiction – bullying is an addiction, after all, both to power and dominance – and pledge to never bully anyone again. If he’s looking for ink and controversy (and he certainly is) there’s no more honest or powerful way for him and the film to get it.

I haven’t seen “Bully” yet but anything that shines a bright light on this terrible corruption of humanity is a good thing. By the way, I disagree about the rating. I think the ‘R’ is right for “Bully.” Certainly every kid in America should see the film, but it’s even more important for the parents to see it since they represent the root cause of the disease. Having to have a parent accompany the child to the theater is a good thing in this case. I’d go so far as to say both parents, if in fact there are two parents, should have to accompany the child.

Kids know all about bullying. They see it every day and everyone knows who the bullies are. But unless the parents of those bullies are made to experience an epiphany, take responsibility and choose to break the pattern, there’s little hope for any substantive change.

Harvey, you have a rare opportunity with “Bully” to actually move the needle and leave the world a better place. I believe that you’d like to see bullying stop. I believe that you “want every child, parent, and educator in America to see “Bully,” and not just for the boxoffice. So get up on that incredibly high horse of yours and use that bully pulpit to assure children, parents and educators everywhere that if you can reform, anyone can.

Light a fire, Harvey, for every kid that’s ever bullied someone and for every parent who taught them how.

(Meryl Poster – Harvey’s former assistant, now President of TV for TWC – responds.)

The post Weinsteins Rebooted: Claim That Bullies Are Bad People appeared first on Light a Fire!.

One evening in 1986, Bingham phoned me in Dallas where I was living at the time and told me about a chance meeting he’d just had. Bob Weinstein had accosted him in the back of a darkened movie theater and tried to hire him as Miramax Films’ head of distribution. Bingham said he’d agreed to meet with Bob the following day but that he was going to turn down the position and suggest Bob call me.

What little I knew – or at least had heard – about Bob and his brother Harvey was that they were worth avoiding. Possibly at all cost. Crazy brothers who didn’t really know anything about the independent film business and impossible to deal with. Under the circumstances, I asked Bingham to please take the meeting and find out all he could about the company and the job before throwing my hat in the ring. He said he would. The next morning he phoned and said he’d turned down the job and Bob would be calling momentarily. Bob wasn’t as bad as his rep, he explained, and I should take the call and hear what he had to say.

Bob phoned soon thereafter and I was struck by how normal he seemed. He wanted to meet but wouldn’t fly me in. If I could get to New York, he’d make time.

I’d left New York in early 1982 where I’d worked for Cinema 5 and New Yorker Films. I’d moved to LA where I thought I’d break into the bigs and get a studio job. Long story short, my plan didn’t fit the timeframe. The studios were in the throes of their worst downturn in many years and it was just before the release of “ET” changed their fortunes in a big way. I’d retreated to Dallas where my family had relocated and landed a sales job with Paramount Pictures. But Dallas wasn’t LA (or NY) and the robotic nature of booking studio films into commercial screens left me feeling, well, like a robot.

I flew to NY where I stayed with Bingham and Nancy during the interview process. I met with Bob and he offered me the job. (Harvey was in LA where he was supervising post on the brothers’ co-written, co-produced, co-directed “Playing for Keeps”.) That afternoon and evening I called everyone I knew in the business and nearly all of them suggested running away as fast as I could. Such was the Weinsteins’ reputation at the time and that of Miramax. Bingham, though, along with my brother Jeff, was more philosophical. They knew that I missed both NYC and the independent film business and so why not.

I took the job and the course of my life was changed forever by that call from Bingham and by his confidence in my ability to handle the Weinsteins and strengthen Miramax.

When brother Jeff phoned me from Sundance the other day to let me know that Bingham had suffered a stroke I was upset but not overly concerned. Bingham was not only one of the community’s most respected, charming and beloved personalities, he was also one of the most irrepressible. I had no doubt that he would survive this inconvenient speedbump.

When word came today that Bingham had passed, I was unprepared for the flood of emotions I felt. We’d not had much contact over the past several years but anytime our paths did cross, the kinship and warmth we’d always had for each other remained undiminished.

We lost a good friend and a very bright light today, but that light lives on in the many he’s touched and influenced over the years and it will live on in my life.

Thanks for everything Bingham. Wherever you go from here, I know you’ll be lighting hopeful and empowering fires for us all.

The post Bingham Ray appeared first on Light a Fire!.

That there remain 14 states who do not ban texting outright is scandalous. Seven of them ban texting only for new and/or young drivers. (Among these, Texas also calls out bus drivers when a passenger 17 and younger is on board and drivers in school-crossing zones.) Seven others have no laws on the books at all. All fourteen of these states should be immediately excised from the Union. Alternately, for each year they neglect to pass a ban, all residents not voting or voting no should be made to choose a family member for execution by crushing. In addition, the mandatory minimum jail sentence for texting while driving should be life without parole for a first offense.

Not quite as scandalous is the number of states who still don’t require hands-free calling. In fact, only ten states plus DC have that law on their books. A few have partial bans but a full thirty-five don’t believe it’s a good idea to have two hands on the steering wheel while driving. That’s what it comes down to. Pure insanity.

When cell phones were newly ubiquitous and hands-free devices weren’t quite up to par, it was a coin toss whether or not to penalize drivers. Today, however, even the lowest priced wired headsets deliver acceptable quality both incoming and outgoing. There’s no longer any reason for those forty states to delay banning all but hands-free conversations. The NTSB could have a positive impact here but instead, in its bureaucratic, reactionary fervor, it’s chosen to throw the baby-on-board out with the bathwater.

They’re frustrated. I get that. People are dying every day unnecessarily. But the answer isn’t to overreact. Rather than seeking an outright ban, suggest that law enforcement re-prioritize. Suggest that sitting on the side of the road with a radar gun may not be the best use of their time. That actively searching out texters or non-hands-free callers will make the roads far safer. Make the point that speeders aren’t the cause of most deaths on the road or incidences of road rage. Rather, it’s bad drivers – like those who impede traffic by refusing to keep right unless passing – who are the root of nearly all evil on the highway.

Suggest that more money can be earned through ticketing bad drivers – texters, non-hands-free-ers, impeders – than by ticketing speeders. That by ticketing – at ever higher fines – drivers who refuse to use turn signals will have their cities’ coffers overflowing with cash. That in ticketing the truly distracted – like drivers applying make-up – they’ll be making the world a safer, saner place for everyone.

Hey NTSB, light a fire for common sense.

The post NTSB In Vegitative State After Head-on Collision With Human Nature appeared first on Light a Fire!.

But appeasement isn’t the most troubling thing about Mary Shapiro’s SEC, it’s the agency’s apparent wholesale ineptitude.

According to Wall Street Journal sources, “Everything’s come to a halt because the SEC doesn’t know what to ask for anymore in the settlements.” If Chairwoman Shapiro and her crew are unable to distinguish between a pinprick ($285 million) and a meaningful penalty for blatantly un-American activities ( how about a minimum of a single quarter’s Citigroup profit: $3.8 billion) then perhaps they should consider something called ‘going to trial.’

The agency will argue that they can’t afford to go to trial. I contend that they can’t afford not to. We as a country can’t afford not to. Going to trial would not only remove the seemingly impossible burden of determining a fair settlement from the shoulders of the SEC, it would send a message to the American public and the world markets that we’re serious – at long last – about financial reform. Yes, it would cost some cash and it would require SEC staff to work their tails off and burn some midnight oil, but that’s their job, right? Expediency is the last thing that should be considered when faith in the government is at a record low and the will of financial institutions to circumvent rules and spit in the face of moral decency hasn’t been this strong since – well, perhaps ever.

If you’re looking for something to occupy, the address is 100 F Street.

Light *this* fire, OWS!

The post SEC And Citigroup – A Study In Ineptitude appeared first on Light a Fire!.

2011 isn’t looking much better.

This past weekend’s overall box-office was the lowest since 2008. The period between Thanksgiving and Christmas is traditionally a dead zone and a dumping ground but, still, this is very bad news for movie theaters. It’s certainly not good news for the studios but it’s not the quality – or lack of quality – of their films that’s responsible for the drop in attendance. And the studios have other options for reaching their audience. At the moment, those options are in flux and the will to use them is rather weak in the face of threats by exhibitors who, for the moment, still have some leverage. But sooner than later, the studios will be forced to turn their backs on their exhibition partners as more and more moviegoing drifts to other platforms. It’s certainly possible that events will conspire to move things along even more quickly than I’ve predicted but not more slowly.

What will the numbers be for 2011? My guess is that the industry will see its lowest box-office tally since 2008 (in spite of ever-higher average ticket prices) and a continued drop in attendance. Whatever the results, there’s no stopping this train. Movie theaters as we know them today are going to become a thing of the past within our lifetimes. And that’s not a bad thing – except for exhibitors. For us, it’s going to result in more choices more quickly and more convenience. It will mean the end of sticky floors, obscenely priced snacks and people kicking your seat. It *won’t* mean the end of social movie-going. In fact, we’ll have more choices there as well.

Here’s another prediction: before 2015, NATO will no longer be as forthcoming with their statistics on the number of theaters and screens in the US or box-office and admission numbers.

Lighting a fire for the future!

The post Yes Virginia… Part 3 appeared first on Light a Fire!.

In a stunning rebuke, Judge Rakoff called the SEC out in its effort to let one of its banker overseers, Citigroup, off the hook after bilking investors out of hundreds of millions of dollars. Citigroup recently announced a third-quarter profit of $3.8 billion dollars yet was on the verge of getting away with a paltry $285 million dollar settlement with no admission of wrongdoing. Judge Rakoff’s smack-down of Citigroup and of Mary Schapiro’s inept SEC is the first glimmer of hope since his earlier SEC settlement ruling in 2009 that America may yet recover from the financial meltdown if not its decade-long depletion of sense, ethics and honor.

The fact that such attempts by the SEC to coddle and protect Wall Street are allowed to continue under the Obama administration is an especially stark example of why the country should be desperately seeking a viable third party candidate to run in 2012.

Keep your fire burning Judge Rakoff, and thanks.

The post One Man With A Meaningful Point of View 2, Occupy Wall Street 0 appeared first on Light a Fire!.