vade retro satane

The Times of London reports that the Holy See's equivalent of the Department of Homeland Security, the chief exorcist, is attributing the perennial spate of scandals to demonic possession in the Vatican and suggests a purging is in order.
 That article was cheap sensationalism and intented to be derisive.  It is a very serious issue that must be redressed and handled transparently, and an exorcism may or may not be part of that reconciliation process.  No one is suggested that blame is shifted and that people were not responsible for their actions--like the Pope's failure to recollect any bad press curried by his Regensberg cohorts, which is either attributable to dishonesty or a failing memory, whichever is worse--and nothing redeemingly diabolical.  Reading the story, however, I noticed right away that the chief exorcist and I have the very same silver and enamel crucifixes.  The Church is mired in controversy but it will emerge from it better and more accountable, and hopeful no one will have to repeat these repeated sufferings.  Hang in there, baby.

dazzling, but where is the pop!?

Yesterday, the Onion posted a very astute article on the dwindling attention span of the media's average readership.  I found the lampoon to be pretty clever, as I do much of the work that the Onion has done over the decades--that is when I remember to check it.  I wonder what kind of dedication it takes to turn on as opposed to tune in.  What kind of virtual roadie archival dedication does it take nowadays to keep up with all the frentic and mindless competition?

compliance & complaints newsletter

I am rather forcibly included on quite a lot of mailing list, most of which are not worth a second glance.  The Winter edition of the EEOCCR newsletter is the most absolutely franjabulous bureaucratic circular that I've seen in a long time.  Not only is the organization headed by friendly chap named "Spurgeon," the marginalia quotes Proust, has information on historic tourist destinations in Washington, DC, has a section called "voidably vague verbiage" that advises against obfuscation by being generally non-commital, and discusses at lenght the 2008 passage of GINA (Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act), as amended.  Electronic publications are certainly scatter-shot, but I think the actual deed of sending something to print made people a little more selective about what passed as informative and comprehensive.  I am certainly not knocking the Equal Opportunity Office, despite being mired in the muck of abbreviations--after all, GINA indentified the gay-gene and then subsequently made it an outcast, I just think an old fashion fan club is a more fitting forum.

abacus

In response to revelations about Greece short-selling themselves and floating their solvency on currency-swaps, the main economic players the EU, Germany and France, are proffering new regulations to curtail this sort of market necromancy.  They are calling for limits to trade driven off of speculation that's been abstracted away from anything that remotely resembles a commodity to be found in this dimension or this plane of being, a future losing-bet deferred.  It's not only mathematical spin that makes things like derivatives inaccessible and incomprehensible, but also some of the loopholes that corporations are herded towards that have absolutely floored me during my protracted studies towards an MBA and make it small wonder that everyone owes everyone else and no one can cough it up.  Brokers, and businesses, it seems only make money by shifting risk.  Admittedly, there's just a smattering of actual financial mathematics, whose variables are divined somehow, and teh coursework has focused on leadership and management ethics, but even what can ultimately be stated sans formulae is incredibly obtuse and counterintuitive and sneaky.  Math is supposed to make complex things clearer--not lend credibility to some hollow shell game.  One doubts its letting out a big secret, but it's more profitable for a company to float its capital on bonds and debt, rather than reinvest its own earnings, due to how the US tax codes are written.  Who would bet on that?