The iPad, for all its deficiencies (which are plenty), is a device that has caused all the major companies to follow in suit with their own tablet devices. But Apple has something that makes theirs different: complete fascist control over their closed system. Everything that runs on an iPad must be approved and stamped with Steve Jobs’ apple shaped seal. But in these times of growing technological complexities, the masses appreciate simplicity. It just works. After all, centagenarians, cats, and corgis naturally know how to use the device without reading the instructions. While critics can list page after page of missing features, the large number of iPad sales reflect how little the public truly cares. As long as it “just works”. But is it because Apple fans are simply sheep buying the newest toy, or is it something more? We must dig deeper. The words of Marcus Aurelius ring true: “Look within. Let neither the peculiar quality of anything nor its value escape thee.” Apple at its core seeks to simplify the user experience. It wants to take the headache out of computing. It wants to ensure that we are able to accomplish the essentials with speed, efficiency, and style.

But I hate Apple. I hate them so much. This whole Adobe/Apple war is getting out of hand. Apple is blocking Flash, and even Flash apps, citing that they are a drain on resources. While their arguments have some merit, their handling of the situation is becoming pretty infantile. Steve Jobs’ ego seems to grow daily, and it may only be a matter of time before efficiency gives way to heavy handed, corporate fascism. We can see this in both the restructuring of iPhone developer requirements and from its increasingly strict censorship of what Apple deems “inappropriate” apps (yet allows Safari to browse objectionable material anyway). Do you really want Apple to tell you what you can and cannot do with your device.

The growing number of Apple hipsters is getting a bit annoying. I don’t really care if you buy shiny toys, but don’t act like you are better than me because of it. Remember when people used to call their phone a cellphone? Now it’s an “iPhone”. Have you seen my iPhone? My friends always try to show off their latest app, their newest game, but never seem to be able to hold a conversation on the phone longer than 3 minutes because of dropped calls. Surprising how this smartphone can’t even make calls properly.

And don’t get me started on their god awful pricing. At times, they can charge upwards of 80 percent premium for similarly specced PC products. People tout the lowest capacity iPad as 499, but with 3G (to me, a necessity) it goes for 630, plus 30 dollars a month in fees. Not such a good deal, anymore (But hey, when you anchor 999 to an audience, 630 sounds like a steal). I’ll go over pricing in the future, and how Apple milks your purchase month after month (with a smile on your face).

Their products are becoming less and less innovative (the iPad? A big ipod, really?), which is predictable given their current position in the market. They are the top dog, eating up market share faster than a fat guy at Hometown Buffet. Why fix something that is obviously not broke. And out in the boonies, Microsoft has become the new underdog, trying to redefine the game through advancement in user interface and user experience. With it’s new Windows 7 Phone Series, and its rumored Courier tablet, Microsoft is becoming what Apple used to be—a visionary company that seeks to improve rather than to rehash. The tables have turned, and honestly, I have Apple to thank for it.

Competition is good. Even though I hate Apple, and will probably never buy any of their products (though I may consider it if the iPad gets a pressure sensitive pen stylus for drawing in the future), I have to thank them for waking up its competitors and beginning a new surge of technology that will shape our day to day lives. Either that or blow us all to hell.

Stop giving him money for doing nothing!

Well sports and politics, and government work.  But anywhere else, failure is punished not rewarded. Yet in NY basketball fans are embracing hope unrealistically.  Buying tickets this year for a team that is continuing the same level of slop that we have come to expect over the past 10 years.  Buying tickets for next year when almost every writer is saying the chances of his coming to NYC as more than a visitor are slipping to 0%.  Google it Lebron James Knicks the top articles will be depressing and the reason for hope will be non-existent.  I stopped watching regular season basketball about 3 years ago simply because I didn’t like the players, front office, and the direction that my favorite team was taking.  Once free agency finishes the way things look I think I won’t have a reason to watch the new season unless the knicks can pull off a trade.  Cause the Lebron answer isn’t going to be it.

Hope this isn’t a strategy…and I see next to no change with this organization….

1- Has the business been around more than 10 years?
2- Over the last 10 years has it consistently grown?
3- Over the next 10 years will its strategy and prospects continue to grow the business at the previous 10 years rates?
4- Would I trust the management with my life savings if it meant they would continue their growth rates over the next 10 years?
5- Is the market offering the company at a discount?

I don’t invest in the company unless I’m 90% confident in answering yes to all 5 of those questions. 60% of that confidence comes from looking at their financial sheets (6 minutes). 10% of that confidence comes from thinking about the world economy and its effects on the market they compete in (3 minutes). 30% comes from what I already know about them (i.e. their ads, products, target market, etc.)(1 minute).

This is a very conservative strategy, but it has resulted in an avg return of 10% yearly for me, including dividends, over the last 4 years. Mind you, this is during the Great Recession.

Imagine that you’re Jack looking to trade your aging cow for some food at the market. Three traders approach you. One offers you several wilted plants that are barely sprouting any beans. Even though the beans aren’t in the best shape, you think you’ll be able to fix them so that they grow more beans, hopefully somewhere within the average. In this scenario, buying several bad looking plants is better than buying just one good looking plant. The second offers you a boring looking plant with enough beans to get by with in the future without your cow. The third shows you some magic beans that he claims will grow into giant beanstalks that will offer you more beans than you can possibly imagine.

In terms of what you’re looking for, your best bet is #2. You’ll be fed longer with the stable plant than what your aging cow will last around for. With a bean plant, it is a lot easier to tell which is your best option. You can inspect the details simply with your eyes and everyone’s eyes work about the same if you aren’t blind. When it comes to inspecting the plants that are companies, it’s a bit more complicated. You look for clues in the financial data and try to draw the picture of what that plant looks like now and in the future.

Value

How do you evaluate the price you’re paying for the bean plant with regards to how much it will be able to feed you in the future? Market Cap tells me how much the trader thinks the plant is worth overall. P/E (Price/Earnings) is the trader telling me how many dollars other customers are willing to pay per bean the plant can eventually produce. For the shitty bean plants, this number is usually low because no one likes the current output of beans from these plants and expects the amount of beans they produce to continue to be low or even lower. For the average bean plant an average price of $12-$20 for each future bean. For magic beans, an extraordinary $40+/expected bean is paid out because other buyers are expecting high output from the magic beans in the future. The PEG tells me more about the correlation of the price per expected bean and the expected growth rate expected bean production. I don’t want to get into the boring details, but if this number is one, then the plant is priced correctly. If it’s lower than one, then there may be some value in it. If it’s higher than one, then the buyers may be over paying for it. Again, these are all inspection clues. Finally, and this is a gross oversimplification, the intrinsic value tells me the margin of safety for purchasing this plant/beans now vs sticking around with my cow. The higher this number, the bigger my margin of safety. I typically want this to be 25%+.

Interesting how all logos have the color red with either white and/or yellow

My job is to find a plant that meets the criteria of the average plant and buy it for the price of the shitty one. Starting with P/E, other bean plant buyers are willing to pay $13 for ea. bean Carl’s plant produces and $11 for ea. bean Jack In the Box produces. The expected rate of Jack’s plant’s output is higher than Carl’s which means the PEG will be much lower. Since its cheaper to get a bean out of Jack’s plant and is highly likely to produce faster output in the future compared to Carl’s, this pushes the plant’s PEG to a value of .7. So I get more beans at a better production rate (PE/G) for a better price (lower P/E). Moreover I can give myself a safety net by calculating the discounted cash flows of Carl’s vs. Jack. I have a higher margin of safety if I’m betting Jack over Carl’s.

Better value: Like their menu, you can buy Jack for less than Carl’s.

Profitability & Growth

McDonald's Da Illest Financials

The troubles and costs associated with maintaining the plant should be much less than benefits of getting fed by it. Simply put, costs for generating a bean should be a small fraction of the bean production. This is profit. In the plant world of fast food joints, profit margins are usually razor thin. In the plant world, debt is weeds that attempts to kill your plant. The more debt on a plant, the more likelihood it can die. EPS = Bean production per seed. Rev growth = Total Bean production growth rate.

The McDonald’s plant should be the plant that your plant aspires to be. Carl’s plant has a lot of weeds in comparison to the other plants ( high debt to equity), requires a lot of maintenance (low profit margin) and has a production rate that is all over the place (negative and flat). Jack requires a lot of maintenance, has an average number of weeds, but has a pretty consistent rate of production.

More profitable and more predictable: Jack’s plant is slightly better. It’s easier to predict the bean production rate, it doesnt require as much maintenance as Carl’s plant, and its production rate is more predictable.

Management

Let’s put a microscope on the plant and take a look at it’s eukaryote cell structure. How well are those mfs synhesizing food for the plant? Ok fine I’ll stop the plant analogy since it’s starting to confuse me now.

Click to view a better resolution

Jack’s return on equity is phenomenal compared to Carl’s. The same can be said for its ROIC. Jack doesn’t pay a dividend, which is an ok thing to me as long as it’s keeping that ROE high. Carl’s dividend is laughable and they shouldn’t even be paying one when they can’t turn a profit. Both companies reduced their shares outstanding. This brings more value since it reduces supply. The CGQ is a pct of how well the management has their checks and balances set up. Insider ownership is far greater in Carl’s which means the management are also shareholders.

Winner: Jack’s has a management that has proven to handle shareholder’s investment money better and has better governance set up.

Conclusion

Wendy’s should not buy Carl’s beca…Hey guess what everybody! This entire analysis is out of date! The investors of Aramark foods bought Carl’s instead! Hope you enjoyed my mediocre plant analogy and straightforward analysis though.

Here we go:

1. These days, everything causes the cancer. Staring at Tom Selleck for too long can cause the cancer.  But fear not caffeinators, our lab-coated brethren have found that caffeinated-beverage drinkers are at a lesser risk of catching the cancer known as Glioma (it’s the kind that doodoos on your brain) than non-caffeine drinkers (aka boring people.) In the study conducted by some guy named Giovannucci and his friends, consumption of five or more cups of coffee or tea daily was associated with a decrease risk of Glioma. So, it’s kind of like a cure, right?

2. Having the choice of drinking coffee or energy drinks for your caffeine intake is like having a liquid mullet hairstyle. You can party like a rock star with a Rockstar or take it black for the grown-man/woman act.

3. When your heart starts jumping like a jitterbugging swinger after sipping on your morning sizzurp, that’s only because you’re realizing how much of a fool you are for paying $5 for a cup of joe at StarFu&ks. You’re not having heart murmurs… OR maybe you are, I don’t know. I’m not a doctor. But research does show that individuals drinking four or more cups of coffee a day have 18% less risk of hospitalization due to heart rhythm disturbances. [disclaimer: while it is unlikely that moderate caffeine intake increases arrhythmia risks, people around you don't really appreciate the reek of your 5 cups of coffee breath. I'm just sayin']

4. Guys, listen up! High caffeine consumption through coffee and/or tea does not affect sperm count. High soda/cola consumption, on the other hand, does. Read it here if you feel like throwing your Dr. Pepper at the monitor.

5. Soon we can all whiff it and whiff it good my friends! No more annoying barristas with their cool sleeve tattoos and emo hair to contend with in order to pass through the gates of caffeine heaven. Thanks to Harvard professor David Edwards, we can now add to our fake cigarette collection a non-spilling, pocket-warmed, no-whipped-cream-mustache-giving, and customizable (OMG, the pink one is totally awesome) caffeine inhaler. Aaah, the smell of kicking coffee beans in the morning!

* Shout out to Energyfiend.com for showing me the light.

Honesty: NOT the Washington way!

Everyone already knows that there will be at least 1000+ articles / opinion pieces about the Health Care bill, as many as the pages in the bill.  By now everyone has heard Rush Limbaugh, conservative talk show host and future feature of Street Verse’s own Kick Rocks Series (promo!) say that he will move to Costa Rica….(or not) upon the passing of this bill.  Rather than sit here and claim I’ve read the text book err bill or act like I understand it, aside from a few points, I’m just going to look at the process to some degree that Democrat Mos, Republican Luc…errr President Obama went through to get the bill passed, which I think speaks to the issue of American politics as a whole.

During his campaign, President Obama ran on a platform of change, a platform of hope, and a platform of not doing this the ol’ Washington way.

He also made healthcare reform one of his key pillars.  I can honestly say that before healthcare reform was a trending topic on twitter (#hcr) or before it was a bill that caused reactions more extreme than those exhibited to the prospect of going to war (to make “them” pay!), The healthcare bill was pretty good when it first started. It addressed multiple problems.

But in typical Washington fashion, (something President Obama said he wouldn’t do) the bill was altered, changed and bloated. It grew to a couple of thousand pages because of side deal after side deal–payments to LA just because, to CT for hospitals among others–as a means to getting the bill across. In typical American political fashion, something good and valid gets mutated to satisfy everyones ‘personal interests’ — a process of mini power plays to prove that every senator has some measure of authority.  This pissing contest typically hurts the spirit of the bill and the people most impacted by it. Yet, politicians have ways of spinning it so that the voters only hear the relevant parts and allow the pol’s to get re-elected.  This is the way it has always been and it seems like there is no end in sight for this practice. We have been down this road before…and the last time we saw ‘Mission Accomplished’, the real battle was far from done…

When I refer to Generation Y, I like to think that it encompasses people under 30 as of today. This is in relation to the Baby Boom Generation (BB) 1945-1964 and Generation X(GenX) 1964-1980.

In my time working in retail, the food industry, and corporate offices, the same patterns began to arise: BB’s and GenX’s have similar work ethic, workplace practices and business models. But there was something odd to me: Even hard working GenY’s were being treated with condescension, great ideas not heard, and motivation was being wasted needlessly. It seemed to me that management as a whole has not discovered the way to fully tap GenY’s potential. Management’s hard headed loyalty to traditional motivators (punishment, simplification, bonuses) did not seem to work as well on GenY’s. To top it all off, GenY’s “blatant disregard” of the rules of conduct in the workplace deemed them incorrigible and inefficient. But I disagree. I believe GenY’s are an evolution of work—and management needs to learn how to properly utilize us.

The most successful companies (Google, Apple) are noticeably the exception to this, and it is my belief that some of this is due to their nurturing of horizontal structure, something GenY’s more heartily accept. Rather than going up the chain with an idea (put it in the idea box, Sam, if it’s good I’ll show my boss and take credit) they allow one on one conversations with higher ups (in pay only) and foster creativity and brainstorming. As a generation that has grown up with the internet, conversation and sharing ideas has become an innate desire. We long to have our voices heard (Twitter, Facebook, Yelp, blogs in general), and we are disheartened when we are shot down by red tape and bureaucracy. This fuels the self-fulfilling prophecy that management has placed upon us. We are shut down, then criticized for lack of motivation. Take a hint from 3M or Google: Our ideas are good, let us tell you them.

We can handle more work, if you’ll just let us. I’ve noticed that higher ups refuse to delegate responsibility because of lack of experience, or some snooty higher-than-thou attitude. Rather than make all it’s important decisions in upper management behind the large wooden doors of a boardroom, many successful businesses delegate their problems to their employees. Google’s famous twenty percent time. Google allows employees twenty percent of their work time to work on their own projects. This has allowed them to rectify many of the problems that users have voiced, all without having to hold a board meeting to fix the problem. Allow us the freedom to help solve your problems, and you will be rewarded for it.

our company better. The caveat here is: we don’t consider it “our company” if we have no connection to it. Is it any wonder why the best companies to work for are also the most successful? When we feel a connection to a company, we want to see it succeed. Zappos is known for offering a thousand dollar bonus to new employees if they quit. Why? They are looking for people who are committed to the job. Rare is the person who takes the offer, however. This is because of the environment Zappos has developed for their employees. It rewards creativity, and seeks to stimulate the workforce rather than whip it into command. For better or worse, technology has had its effect on GenY. The internet, video games, and television necessitate GenY’s need to have external motivation in order to function at their full potential. Rather than fight technology’s tangential effects on the workforce, embrace it. Make work a stimulating experience, and you will be rewarded with it.

GenY isn’t without its faults. We’re irreverent, bawdy, we come in late, we don’t like suits that much, we like to surf the internet. We’re not perfect. But we do have our strengths. We are creative. We can solve sophisticated problems.We can work well together. We want our company to succeed. The work environment will change eventually, like it or not. The question is which companies will be left behind in the archaic bureaucracies of the past and which will embrace GenY’s and their quirks and move forward into the future.

In the book Made to Stick (that I highly recommend to anyone that wants to get their message across and have people talking about it the next day) the authors come up with 6 different elements that they routinely see in SUCCESsful marketing.  Did you think I emphasized one letter too few when I bolded SUCCESsful? Well, no I didn’t. For some reason, the authors were too lazy to come up with an extra S in their acronym.  Their acronym is SUCCES with the last S left out.  Each letter stands for the following:

• S -- Simple.  People have a hard time dealing with abstract ideas in short messages. Make sure the message is easy to understand.
• U -- Unexpected.  Play with the audience’s primal insticts and surprise them.  It’s very important not to use a cliché in this category. Think man on horse for the Old Spice commercial and how well that did.
• C -- Concrete. This is sort of a subcategory of simple. Make sure the audience can relate to the message.
• C -- Credibility. Make sure the audience can envision themselves in that situation.
• E -- Emotion. Make sure the audience knows why they should care about your message.
• S -- Stories. Narrative. Narrative. Narrative. Humans are wired to remember stories and connect with them.

Think about how well Aesop’s fables have done. They’ve stuck around because they’re great narratives with simple messages.  Every human can relate to them and picture themselves as the tortoise, the ant or the fox.  The unexpected may happen in some of his fables, like a hare losing to a tortoise in a race. Yeah, it sounds silly to be unexpected, but you gotta think of the time period. Back then people didn’t know what whales looked like, so they drew them with a fish body and pig head (I’m not making this up). It was easy to surprise them.

So let’s take a look at a few of Carl’s latest ads and evaluate how well they do against the SUCCES criteria:

Boring. Unfortunately, the cliched joke on snuggies is going to last for a long time. Probably as long as that Dick Cheney shooting someone joke. The message of comfort food and the snuggie was subtle and not concrete. In terms of the unexpected, I really wanted Jack in the Box to come out of nowhere, rip the snuggie off of him and strangle the mf with it.

The punchline didn’t work for two reasons. First hardly anyone orders a grilled cheese when they go to a diner or fast food restaurant so no one can relate to the main character’s predicament. Therefore it fails the two C’s. Two, the grilled cheese sangwhich (new yorker for sandwich) isn’t a grilled cheese sangwhich, it’s a fuckin burger so no one can relate to the joke.  At least it has somewhat of a narrative.

This one is a bit better. We have the unexpected burgers talking to each other. It’s simple: Carl’s gives more meat, less bread, and better value as a burger. It plays to my emotions as it’s a goddamn juicy burger. However, there’s nothing really sticky about it other than that. I’ll forget about Carl’s Jr once I see steaks advertised for $3.50/lb. in the Henry’s newspaper ad.

Plays to my emotions well and Kim Kardashian sticks in my mind for the next three minutes. After the testosterone spike subsides, I ask myself, what was the commercial for again? Salads. Girls like salads, guys hate salads. Guys like Kim Kardashian, girls hate Kim Kardashian. None of the SUCCES criteria is met with this advertisement. It’s playing to male sex emotion, but selling the sex and not the product.  This is not going to bring women running into Carl’s wanting a taste of the salad, it’s going to send boys to Google Images searching under they keywords “Kim Kardashian Playboy.” Whoever was in charge of producing this commercial would be fired the next day if I were running Carl’s. This is just more evidence that Carl’s continues to target their base instead of reaching out for newer markets (people who actually eat salad and care if they have a gut).

Western Bacon cheeseburger and Padma Lakshmi? What’s the connection. How do I relate to this other than the obvious sexual cliches (seriously how many times are they going to show a burger jizzing all over girls?).  The message is way too complex. Why am I going to eat a burger that jizzes on me for? Carl’s Jr is fast food, there’s no culinary experience needed to determine if the burger is good or not.  The story was good I guess, but it’s hard for me to believe that a culinary expert that slept with THIS GUY in a long term relationship is a total freak.  Credibility fail. To me a perfect target for this burger would’ve been old people. They love things that are gourmet, bacon and Texas (or Nebraska).  Look how well Omaha steaks have done thanks to old people loving Nebraska so much.  Stop focusing everything on horny college kids Carl’s, they have no money.

Carl’s needs to take a lesson from the way Jack in the box has rebranded itself.  Its advertisement campaigns have been extremely solid in terms of SUCCES.  The menu coincides with the quirkiness and memorable moments of its ads.  Bowl haircuts, teriyaki bowls. Mini cattle, mini cowboys, mini sirloin burgers.  Just look at how fucking catchy this fucking commercial is:

This is one of my favorite Jack commercials. Simple/Concrete -- We have a new product that offers a different and tastier cut of the cow than the competitor. Credible -- It was so believable that Carl’s Jr ended up suing Jack for making people think angus came from the anus of a cow. Don’t believe me? Here’s the link to prove. Unexpected -- we’re led to believe that angus comes from the anus of a cow. Emotion is lacking but they do mention that ’sirloin needs to be tasted to be believed.’ The narrative is that there’s a new burger that’s never been made before. I still remember this commercial after 4 years because it did so well at taking a shot at Carl’s, Burger Tang (*wink* to my hippy ice cream eating niece) and WacDonald’s angus burgers. I ate sirloin burgers literally for 3 months straight. The message still sticks with me today.

WHAT’S GOOD BURGER KING?! Simple/Concrete -- BK says have it your way but you can’t if its not on their menu all day every day. Credible -- Jack specifies that HIS menu is available all day every day so he’s the only one that let’s you have it your way. Unexpected -- Homeboy rips his arms off and you’re expecting some chicken arms to be behind that corporate facade. NOPE! Jack breaks out arms big enough to compete with Hogan’s twin pythons and says bring it BK. Also, that subtle airquote for “competitor” while he’s walking is da illest. BK sucks and Jack knows it. Emotional -- Fear I guess? I wouldn’t fuck with Jack. Story -- He’s just taking a casual stroll down the block and talking shit about BK, something I can totally relate to. Stuck.

THAT’s how you target to an extensive demographic. While the target is obviously the spanish speaking world, this shit hits all the sticky criteria for anglos alike. Simple -- I know the product because it’s in the jingle. Unexpected -- there’s midgets everywhere, hugging black people, and dancing with the spanish speaking game show hosts. Concrete -- Midgets are mini, like the sangwich. Hell they even call it a sangwich for a new yorker to relate. Credibility -- the midget plays the tuba. Emotion -- the whole commercial is fun and makes me want to dance at the next quincinera while eating these things. Story -- the story is weaved into the music and the dance. Even though 70% of anglo people have no idea what the lyrics translate to, let alone like mariachi music, they understand the story is about a mini buffalo ranch chix sangwich. How sticky is this fucking commercial? I bet you’ve already replayed it several times by now. Women, kids, whites, blacks, horny college students can all eat el mini buffahlow ranch ahora.

Clear winner: Jack in the box. Their commercials are far stickier and reach out to a broader audience. Reaching out to a broader audience means bigger market, bigger market means bigger growth and a better performing company over the long term.

Jack is in the lead 2-0 over Carl’s in terms of investment criteria. There’s only one more left and really the be all end all when it comes to investing in anything. Financials.

I too can sell out for the right price

At one point he pulled together some interesting movies, that had a good deal to say & were of a good caliber. But after a while he started making the same movie. Blacks in x situtation. It was beyond belief. While he didn’t resort to Tyler Perry status he unquestionably became predictible and boring. More than that he started going after others questioning ‘where are the brothers‘ in their movie. Locally it became a running joke actor x could only get fim money in spike lee movies which aren’t that good & the requirement to be in them.

If that’s that enough. In america having fame for any reason regardless how insignifcant gives you a platform to be heard. This aimless twit, gets air time to discuss his thoughts on the knicks& yanks (which he claims he’s a fan) usually he’s dead wrong with his analysis but they go back to him. One of his most egregious instances of this was his blind support of isiah thomas. Like a groupie for Isiah, Lee defended him & even lauded his moves!?! Spike also likes dick…One other key point he was featured prominently in the Dan Klores film winning time, in the same vein as Cheryl…er I mean Reggie Miller,  which stoked his ego and further played up his faux celebrity

I suspect it had more to do with Isiahs skin color because his track record nor performance earned the praise being heaped on him but hey in the eyes of spike if its black it can’t be wack!

Crack is Wack but if its black its not wack...ask spike

One last point. Personally I may not agree with your ideology, or your take one or many things for that matter. Obviously this is the case with spike lee. But I actually had the displeasure of meeting the lil guy. & he was an asshole in person. So he doesn’t even have personality as a redeeming quality.  This lil quirk was reaffirmed by others I spoke to who like him. “Its just spike lee & who is he”. Just like manny being man is bullshit. A person being an ass & passing it off as a slight character trait is bullshit.

Spike Lee congrats on another first. Spike is the first to be asked to please go kick rocks…

Is this right, and could it happen here in America?

Depending on your perspective on the nature and purpose of law, your answer would vary. Many people in this country would say, hell yes, this is right! Any form of child pornography, even virtual /animated, is immoral and therefore illegal. People who watch this stuff are pedophiles or pedophiles-to-be and deserve to be locked up before they can rape my children.

This is what I think: Banning virtual kiddie porn is against the spirit of American law, and should never, ever happen.

Disclaimer: Now before you call the popo on my ass, know this much. I don’t watch or support kiddie porn, real or animated. I think it’s sick and deviant, and anyone who watches it is pretty much a pervert. What, what, what??! Isn’t that psychotically hypocritical? Let me explain.

It is my belief that America is built on an amoral legal system. We are a disestablishmentarianist government, we do not believe in a state church and try to distance ourselves from meddling with religious affairs. This suggests that our laws cannot be based on a particular religion’s moral code, though admittedly, our legal system isn’t a perfect vacuum, so legislation with obvious moral color has, and will continue to be, passed. Though certain individuals, erm parties even, seem to believe otherwise, America was built on law that was amoral. The Constitution was structured loosely and broadly in order to encompass the ideas of all religions, nationalities, and ideas, as long as the actions taken by these individuals did not infringe on the freedoms of anybody else. This is where we can find support for my argument: In the use of palpable harm as a measurement of infringement of personal rights of individuals.

Palpable harm is a real harm: emotional or physical, that is caused by an action or event. Though there is some stretch to this measure (Did that naked guy running through the street really cause palpable harm?), there is definitely a limit to its use. Back in the crazy fucked up 80’s, we had the case of Bower vs. Hardwick, wherein two gay guys were busted for having sex within the confines of a home, with the curtains drawn and the door closed. They were charged with sodomy (illegal in that state). The Supreme Court upheld this fucked up arrest, saying that nowhere in the Constitution did it allow (paraphrased) “butt fucking as a universal inalienable right under the Constitution”. The Court underestimated the righteous fury of gay men scorned. Seventeen long years later, Lawrence vs. Texas overturned this decision. Pretty much the same case as before, two gay guys doing it in a room, except it was even more fucked up this time because someone called in a robbery (he fucking knew they were having sex) in progress, just to stop these gays from making butt love. In a stunning 6-3 decision, the Court stated under the 14th amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses, there is no legitimate state interest in banning sodomy, there is no palpable harm caused by consensual sex behind closed doors, and essentially: stop whining about mental images, you fucking pansies (I’m pretty sure he actually said this). Imagination does not create palpable harm. Yes, if the two gay guys were butt nekkid on the front porch with bright neon arrows pointing into their rectums, besides being completely psychotic, it would be illegal. Sex behind closed doors? Hey, let em do their thing. Imagined harm is not palpable harm. Just ‘cause I imagine two sweaty muscular dudes playing pocket pool with each other doesn’t mean they should be arrested. Now onto child porn.

First let’s talk about the difference between real child porn and virtual child porn. Real child porn causes palpable harm. How? Well, besides the little child getting abused in the video/picture, if you buy it, view it, give money to the person who made it somehow (advertisements etc.), you perpetuate abuse and create a real and palpable harm. Virtual porn, on the other hand, creates no palpable harm. No child is abused when pictures are drawn, and giving the hentai artist money won’t directly cause children to be hurt.

But Sally, what about those pedos who watch kiddie hentai, won’t this fuel their carnal desires to predate younglings? Well, the same can be said for violence, sex, and drugs in movies, video games, music, art…just because you see it, doesn’t necessarily make you more likely to do it. I love violent video games, but you don’t see me stabbing people with samurai swords.

If there is no one being physically harmed, and no one is being emotional harmed(no one is forcing you to view such objectional content), there is no palpable harm. We can’t punish the few in favor of the many cases that this decision would cause. Similar legislation has recently been overturned, so I am not alone in this. There are more complex ways of arguing the same point (rational basis, and strict scrutiny tests), but this is the simplest way I can put it.

Kiddie porn: bad. Banning something that does not cause palpable harm: also bad.

Hopefully you can see the broader implications of what this case means. E.g. Hey what else doesn’t cause palpable harm? *Smokes a J*

As an avid hip-hop connoisseur of New York 90’s era, I can surely state that there were dope beats, dope lyrics, and just overall DOPE music.  One of the eras greatest producers was and is DJ Premier, one half of Gangstarr.  He is among the most consistent producers ever with the boom-bap style and the ridiculous scratch cut-ins for hooks.  The big weird shit with Premo is that he has a record of picking half-ass emcees to rock over his beats.  Some of those are Smiley The Ghetto Child, Blaq Poet, AND LAST BUT MOST DEFINITELY NOT LEAST Group Home.  The team of Lil Dap and Malachi the Nutcracker came out with the CLASSIC record “Livin Proof” in 1995.  Many people consider this album Premo’s best work EVER production-wise.  Lyric-wise the keeds in the street would say L O L L M A O.  So I will go into the best (or worst) lyrics that Group Home has ever spit….

“Put the boys on the street, make them walk this beat
Teach them how to eat, and to seek for peace”—”Livin Proof”

“Yo I rock on the block with the real hip-hop
As you start to clock… and jock”—”Livin Proof”

“When I take flight (like who kid?) Like Mike”—”Livin Proof”

“Big time doe, money is a thriller/I’m gettin more iller than the Zodiak Killer”--”Supa Star”

“Chicks Grabbin’ they cunts”—”Supa Star”

“Word to AH (1.5 second Pause) LAH, and it don’t seem hard”—”Supa Star”

“I’m eatin’ curried chicken and rice these hoes look nice”—”Inna Citi Life”

“Swing the mic live in trife do what you like
I hit your moms in the head with a metal pipe”—”Inna Citi Life”

“I make you wanna jump, sike, I kill a fuckin’ mike
I write the hype dope lyrics that you like”—”Inna Citi Life”

“Aiyyo the crooks be crooks and the sons be sons
Made the biggest man beat the man with the biggest guns”—”Sacrifice”

“Deadly like a rattle snake
But I don’t rattle”—”Sacrifice”

“You funny, like a fuckin dummy Bugs Bunny”—”Sacrifice”

“Me and my crew got to live in proof
Livin Proof”—”Sacrifice”

“When we walk these streets, Lyrics do get deep”—”Suspended in Time”

“You gotta put ya mind in achieve mode, Go for your goals BOOM BOOM explode”—”Suspended in Time”

“You know how I rock, I rock nonstop, Hop on stage, you jump..on my jock”—”Suspended in Time”

THATS ONLY A PARTIAL LIST TOO, I could go on for another 2 hours

Supa Star