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

Ah, the worm turns....

Wedding bells will ring later this year if the Supreme Court decides that gay couples are constitutionally entitled to marry. But health insurance, more than romance, may nudge some couples down the aisle.

Amid a push that has made same-sex marriage legal in 37 states and the District of Columbia, some employers are telling gay workers they must wed in order to maintain health-care coverage for their partners. About a third of public- and private-sector employees in the U.S. have access to benefits for unmarried gay partners, according to a federal tally, but employment lawyers say the fast-changing legal outlook is spurring some employers to rethink that coverage.

But see, access to benefits for unmarried heterosexual partners have typically not been available.

Of course that's discrimination, but nobody cares because it's discrimination against the "wrong" people.  Just like it didn't matter when the discrimination was against blacks years ago, now if you're heterosexual or worse, heterosexual and Christian, you're often just plain hosed in this regard, denied equal access to the same "benefits" that gay people get.

That ought to be illegal and prosecuted but it damn near never is.

Now, however, this is changing.  If you live in a state where you can get "married" as gay people, then employers are fully within their rights to tell you that if you want those benefits then go get married!

Now this poses a particular problem because with "marriage" (as the state defines it) you also get to have all the "fun" that comes when your relationship ends.  Specifically, you are no longer in charge of how that's negotiated in the first place or later on, and the state will make that decision for you including changing the terms after you get married.

Ask anyone who got married in the 1950s or 60s and have a reasonable presumption that unless they did something truly awful (like abandonment, addiction, abuse or adultery) their financial and family rights would be respected how that worked out for them in the 1970s, 80s and beyond.  Make sure you're prepared to be pelted by eggs.

On the other (positive) side we have two states, Alabama and Oklahoma, that are considering getting the state out of the marriage business almost entirely, a position I've advocated for a long time.  While neither of them may be doing this "right" (in that they likely do not intend to allow couples to file their own contractual partnership documents that are enforceable, and instead will insist on their "state standard" versions) it's still progress.

In any event I have to chuckle, in that this looks to me to be an example of the infamous warning: Be careful what you wish for -- you just might get it.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

This will not stop until the people who make such false claims are charged with a felony equally serious to that which would have been imposed on the assaulting party were the allegations true:

Last weekend, an 18-year-old student at the school had told campus police that two young men who were complete strangers raped her at knifepoint in her fourth-floor dorm room.

After a resulting criminal probe, police have now concluded the woman in lying.


Another University of Minnesota official, Katie Eichele of theAurora Center, “a safe and confidential space” for victims of sexual assault, suggested that no one should judge the unidentified student who made the armed******allegations police don’t believe.

“The victim-survivor is the most important person in all of this, and supporting what it is they’re going through and what they may want in the process,” Eichele told the newspaper.

Uh huh.

And as for the two men who, had they been identified and stood accused of something that never happened?

Who's the victim here?

I'll tell you who: All the men who are tainted by these false allegations and thus have women looking over their shoulder without cause believing they may be rapists, and worse, all those women who report actual sexual assaults who have their credibility damaged or destroyed by these false allegations.

A couple nights ago while about to leave from a local place I frequent I witnessed what might have been an incipient actual assault in process.  If had become necessary to intervene I would have; I made a "first move" toward doing so by placing my vehicle where its dashcam was able to make a nice high-definition video record of what was going on and was prepared to abandon it with the camera running in an attempt to stop the assault if one took place.  The person who might have been intending to do an evil thing, as evidenced by his actions, and who had attempted to quite-aggressively "panhandle" me on my way out of the establishment where I had been just a minute or two previous, saw me in my vehicle and how it was placed and, apparently, decided that whatever he intended to attempt wasn't such a bright idea.  I have no idea who the woman was that he appeared to be targeting, but that situation came very close to requiring real intervention. Another 30 seconds or one bad aggressive move by him and things could have gone sideways; who knows the outcome, but I wasn't going to quietly sit there or drive off if it did.

We do nobody, man or woman, any good and in fact we do much harm when we refuse to strenuously prosecute all false allegations of this sort.  There is no "mistake" when you claim that two unknown men attempted to******you at knife-point; either those two men and the knife existed or they did not.  If they did not then the person making that allegation needs to go to prison -- period -- because otherwise when the incipient assault that I may have participated in preventing happens because nobody is around to intervene, and said person survives and reports it, she is less likely to be believed and as a result someone who really did do it has a greater probability of getting away with that assault.  That's unacceptable.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

This is the sort of thing that needs to become a trend nationally:

RICHMOND, Va. — A University of Virginia associate dean sued Rolling Stone magazine on Tuesday for more than $7.5 million, saying a debunked and retracted account of an alleged gang******on campus cast her as the “chief villain.”

Nicole Eramo, the top administrator dealing with sexual assaults at the Charlottesville school, said the lengthy and graphic magazine piece about a student******victim identified only as “Jackie” portrayed her as more concerned about protecting the elite university’s reputation than helping victims of sexual assault.

He needs to add "Jackie" to the suit as well, as does anyone else who is falsely accused in the media or otherwise.

I've long argued that those making false allegations of this type need to be prosecuted, and will continue to in the future, because the damage they do to women who really are raped is incalculable.  But this is a good start; holding people accountable who not only make such reports but also try to turn such reports into scream-fests for political and policy change is utterly necessary if we are to focus public attention and political change toward positive outcomes.

Until and unless this happens all we're doing is enabling the use of government goon squads by anyone that can tell a good story, irrespective of the truth.

That is, in fact, no different than what ISIS does.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)


A Central California woman claims she was fired after uninstalling an app that her employer required her to run constantly on her company issued iPhone—an app that tracked her every move 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Plaintiff Myrna Arias, a former Bakersfield sales executive for money transfer service Intermex, claims in a state court lawsuit that her boss, John Stubits, fired her shortly after she uninstalled the job-management Xora app that she and her colleagues were required to use.

Apparently the device in question was company issued; it was not her phone.  She was also a quite highly-paid employee; her attorneys claim she made $7,250 a month, which would put her salary well into the "nicely paid" category.

Her employer apparently also told her that she had to have the phone "powered on" all the time, even when not working, so that clients could call her.  This is where a potential problem comes from in her suit; rather than tell her boss that her time off the job was her own and that she was going to leave the device at the office when she clocked out (and then doing so) she instead tampered with it.

They fired her and she sued, alleging invasion of privacy and other torts.

I suspect she's got a pretty good case but for the tampering rather than a simple refusal to carry the device (with its tracking) off-clock.  There are plenty of legitimate business reasons to know where your staff is when off-site yet on the company dime, particularly when you're involved in sales or movement of product, and that's probably defensible (think a truck driver, for example.)  However, the same sort of tracking off-clock is another matter although we already have firms that test for various conduct off-hours (e.g. drug testing) and which, thus far, we've allowed to go on.

This will be an interesting case to watch; I only wish the water hadn't been muddied up a bit.

PS: If the GPS was truly on all the time -- and I very much doubt it -- that iPhone would have crap battery life.  As such I suspect what it was really doing is "sampling" on some basis, rather than being on continually.  And incidentally, many of the apps on your phone, including games, do the same sort of thing, which leads one to question whether that is legal too.....

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

No, the problem with the so-called rape culture is not that your daughter is likely to get raped while at college, contrary to the feminist screaming that is being drummed into their heads.  It's not even the violence being done to free speech, although that's a big problem too.

The bad news, in terms of long-term relationship stability, might be promotion of the worst possible outcome of all.

Let's look at the latest on the assault perpetrated against men under dubious (at best) circumstances:

A male student accused of raping his classmate has sued Columbia University for failing to protect him against backlash and harassment. 

Authorities rejected Emma Sulkowicz's case that Paul Nungesser, a German citizen, was a 'serial rapist' who assaulted her after class.

Nonetheless, the case gathered international attention as Sulkowicz, a senior majoring in visual arts, publicly paraded her mattress in protest, calling for his indictment. 

And according to Nungesser's lawsuit citing 'gender-based harassment and defamation', Columbia presented the allegations as fact on a university-owned website. 

It sure looks like they did to this outside observer; this goes well beyond "free speech" in that the so-called "victim" (who had her case rejected by the courts) managed to get her "protest" accepted as a for-credit portion of her senior thesis!

Does that make the college liable?  If it doesn't, it should.

Oh, and the so-called "charge" itself, beyond the fact that the cops threw it out?  Well, there's plenty of issue there to raise, including apparent Facebook messages before and after the alleged "assault" that were anything but indicative of being assaulted.  Indeed, it facially appears that when her pursuit of romance (to go with the sex) failed and he spurned her she went after him in retribution.

Many of these sorts of cases turn on how someone felt; there is no real argument on the facts of what happened.  This appears to be facially different: One of the two in this case pretty much has to be flat-out lying.

This, by the way, is why such charges deserve to be heard in courtrooms where formal discovery rules apply and the accused has a presumption of innocence rather than allowing an accuser to drag the accused through the mud in public and for credit as part of a college thesis.

But let's leave aside whether this particular assault really happened or this is a case of a vindictive bitch who has pledged to destroy a man who, after sampling the merchandise with her consent decided he wanted nothing to do with it on a long-term basis (and, if that's the case, viewing the result objectively it appears he made that decision with good cause too.)

No, the problem with these sorts of incidents and our society allowing them to be pressed in the manner they are today is not simply the impact on the accused and the perversion of justice.  It is the impact on those not yet accused and what sort of decisions it will lead good and decent men of high intelligence to make on a preemptive basis.

And it is here that I call upon all of us to push back -- hard -- against this sort of feminist claptrap, especially if you have daughter(s).


Because I want my daughter, who is of an age to be able to make her own choices, to have the choice of a pool of suitors that includes good, decent and highly-intelligent men.  I want them to be willing to court her and know that should they get involved the same legal protections that apply to him being accused in a bar fight apply to him when he's between the sheets.

What I do not want to have happen is for him to be deterred in approaching her in the first place, looking at all women as potential******accusers when nothing of the sort happened simply because he decided he didn't want that particular woman as a partner.

If we allow this sort of crap to stand intelligent men, the very ones we want pursuing our daughters, are at least somewhat likely to process these events in that fashion and will be deterred from said courtships instead of proceeding in a mutually-agreeable and positive manner.

The snake-like men who have nothing to lose and are predatory, on the other hand, will not be deterred as they know full well that the criminal process will never withstand such a claim and they don't care about a chick carrying a mattress around on her back.

In other words the harm here against the accused is the least of the problem from a general societal perspective.  No, the harm here is the severe damage this case has done and will continue to do to the ranks of good, decent men who are simply going to walk off from such romantic prospects and refuse to engage.

That is a terrible thing and does vast harm, both to our daughters directly and to society as a whole -- and for this reason we must not tolerate this sort of crap in any way, shape or form.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
No Kidding? Stan Sees The Problem?

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.


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.