The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Social Issues]

Hmmm....

Rosie O’Donnell’s adopted daughter, Chelsea, has left home to live with her birth mother, a representative for the actress told FOX411 on Wednesday.

O'Donnell's representative said she “made the decision” when she was 18.

That didn't have anything to do with Rosie confiscating her phone and turning it over to the cops, resulting in someone she may have been with on a consensual basis being charged with a couple of felonies, would it?

If that's what happened here, and especially if Chelsea left because she was tired of Rosie's **** (which was probably the case) then **** you with a rusty chainsaw Rosie.

What was the time line here - a couple of days prior to Chelsea's 18th birthday?  Looks like it, given the dateline on this story -- and the previous one.

If I ever find Rosie O'Donnell being eaten by a shark -- I'm cheering the shark on.

smiley

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

This is interesting but hardly surprising.

Infidelity website Ashley Madison and its parent company have been sued in federal court in California by a man who claims that the companies failed to adequately protect clients' personal and financial information from theft, saying he suffered emotional distress.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles by a man identified as John Doe, seeks class-action status.

The lawsuit accuses Ashley Madison and parent company Avid Life Media Inc, which is based in Toronto, of negligence and invasion of privacy, as well as causing emotional distress.

Emotional distress?  The usual tort is intentional infliction of emotional distress.  I don't think you can get there, but the negligence claim might well hold up.

At issue is the site's claim that you could pay to be "erased", when in fact it appears they did not erase your data.  It may well be that single representation that nails these guys.

What I've often wondered is why, when it comes to people's marriages and other relationships that are destroyed by conduct enabled by a site such as this the site's owners are not sued for tortious interference.  That, it would seem to me, is a ripe field -- even absent a data breach.

That's because a site that has an open and notorious policy of catering to people who are seeking to cheat (and enabling them to do so for profit) is quite different than someone who signs into a dating site representing that they are single when they are not.

Nonetheless I'm not all that surprised at the lack of data security -- or, it appears, any concern at all for same, even when it comes to billing data.  That's distressingly common among firms -- it's somewhat difficult to do that right, especially when you're dealing with a recurring billing situation (which they probably were.)

I'll be watching this with bemused interest.... and no, my email and other data is not in there.. smiley

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

2015-08-22 12:49 by Karl Denninger
in Social Issues , 329 references
 

I was a big skeptic on the original reports related to Rosie O'Donnell's daughter -- particularly why she would be taken into custody when found.

17 is an interesting age; under the law a 17 year old cannot consent to most things, but there are notable exceptions -- including sex in some states.  However, Federal law has no such distinction which means that if you live in a place where a different state is close by you can find yourself on the wrong end of a prosecution for something that within your own state would be entirely legal simply because one of you crossed a state line.

Note that Rosie claims that her daughter suffers from "mental illness."  Maybe; the particular form of "mental illness" has not been disclosed so I'll reserve judgment there too.  Many parents (never mind what is probably a majority of school teachers) will label any kid that doesn't meet their desires "mentally ill" immediately and toss them on some sort of psychotropic medication.  This of course meets the "clinical" definition of mental illness I suppose, but the person who's ill isn't the kid.

But now, we learn this:

TOMS RIVER, N.J. (AP) — The owner of the home where Rosie O'Donnell's missing teen daughter was found earlier this week has been arrested for allegedly having inappropriate online communications with the 17-year-old girl, according to authorities and the star's spokeswoman.

Steven Sheerer faces charges of child endangerment and distribution of obscenity to a minor, authorities said Saturday.

Child endangerment?  I think not, but.... whatever.

However, distribution of obscenity implies that the two of them were involved in something not-quite-so-clean.  The guy is apparently 25 and, it appears, the cops got Chelsea's phone with her mother's consent and riffled through it to find something to charge him with.

How do I feel about this as a father of a now-legal adult young woman?  Conflicted, frankly.  There's a general problem with these border cases; in less than one year Chelsea can choose who she associates with, where, and on what terms.  Do you really think that the line is bright enough to send someone to prison for 10 years on that basis?

I'm sure you do if you're the father (or mother) of said 17 year old and you don't like the guy.

But what if you're the guy's mother (or father)?

And don't get me started on the outrageous level of reverse-misogyny that is displayed real fast when these debates start.  Anyone who claims that girls are the "victims" in all of these cases is just flat-out wrong, and if you've ever observed the youth of today you know I'm right on that point.

Maybe we'll get the whole story on this as time goes on or maybe not.  But my spidey sense said to hold off writing on it when the story of Chelsea "missing" first broke, and that was only reinforced when the news reports broke of her being in "custody" when found -- as if taking a 17 year old into "custody" for simply leaving could be justified.

Now we know there's more to the story but I'm happy (for once) to see that the mass-media is, surprisingly enough, holding off on the usual fawning festival displayed in such cases.  This time, it appears, there really is more going on than might originally meet the eye.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

As they say, oops!

In May 2015, Duggar was forced to resign after In Touch Weekly reportedthat he had molested five young girls (four of whom were his own sisters) beginning in 2002. When the accusations became public, the family went into crisis mode, insisting that Josh had reformed and that the media covering the claims was intent on “exploiting women.”

Josh himself took to his family’s Facebook page to absolve himself of his past indiscretions and assure the world he was back on a righteous path:

.....

But data released online in the wake of the hack on Ashley Madison’s servers certainly seems to show otherwise. Someone using a credit card belonging to a Joshua J. Duggar, with a billing address that matches the home in Fayetteville, Arkansas owned by his grandmother Mary—a home that was consistently shown on their now-cancelled TV show, and in which Anna Duggar gave birth to her first child—paid a total of $986.76 for two different monthly Ashley Madison subscriptions from February of 2013 until May of 2015.

Well now.....

Lots of people have affairs, of course.  But isn't it interesting that it seems that those who pontificate the loudest and bang on the Bible the most seem to be more-afflicted with various acts that are proscribed therein?

This leads one to ask one very-inconvenient question:

Is The Bible "the inerrant word of God" or is it sold to you as that while being written and edited by man then used to club you over the head so as to subjugate you to the will of other men?

After all if those who preach in this fashion actually believed in The Bible then they would also believe that they'd burn in Hell for their very own actions, which are not only sinful but they are quite-clearly not truly sorry for their acts nor do they intend to sin no more.

PS: Duggar apparently has admitted that yes, this is his....

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Why is this surprising to anyone?

I Am Cait had a strong premiere after Jenner went on Diane Sawyer to talk about her journey to become a woman. But in its third week on E! the show had only 1.2 million overall viewers, according to Nielsen ratings – with only half a million in the 18-49 year old demographic, which is its intended target audience.

Who wants to hear about a man who has undertaken extreme measures to lie both to himself and others?  Only that tiny fraction of the population that is also similarly deluded.

Oh sure, the rest of the population might tune in for the purpose of witnessing the expected train wreck that they believe will imminently appear.  But if it doesn't appear they won't come back for seconds -- and didn't.

What's left is the tiny fraction of those who are neck-deep in this sort of delusion themselves, and that's not a material number -- as is shown by the ratings.  The rest of the population simply gives a smirk -- or far worse for E!, a sneer.

Such it will be with Target, I suspect, who similarly has decided that "sex isn't an attribute" when it comes to children's toys, furnishings and (I presume) clothes.  Uh huh.  Surrrrreeee.... While there certainly are girls that will chew their PopTart into a facsimile of a gun, I bet the boys outnumber them at least 10:1, and more-so when that assault pastry gets put into a hand and the word "bang!" is pronounced.

That's not innate between the sexes?  The hell it isn't.

Outlying examples are that for a reason -- they're (comparatively) rare.

Will "E!" cancel this perversion parade?  Probably, at the point that it costs them enough money.

You can't change what became immutable at the time of the bonding of sperm and egg; every cell in your is a function of that original joining, whether you like it or not.  You can either accept it or refuse, either embrace who you are or not.  That's a choice, and with it comes consequence.

But you can't change those facts and, whether E! likes it or not, people won't sit and watch something that they find ridiculous and vapid beyond the point that the train wreck expectation they were given remains unfulfilled.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
Why I Find It Hard To Give A F**k

Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.