There is a tacit understanding on Wall Street that gloating is not necessary or appreciated when winning, and that whining is categorically unacceptable when you’re losing. It’s that tempestuous little thing called “risk” and sometimes she smiles upon you and sometimes she doesn’t, but she doesn’t come with a money back guarantee. Never has. Never will.
The victimization mentality that permeates more and more segments of society like a flesh eating bacterial strain has found investors as a new host upon which to feed, never more clearly personified than with all the sniveling since the IPO of Facebook a few days ago. The disingenuous and pre-manufactured claims along with ready-made lawsuits were on the launch pad and in the hopper before the stock was ever cleared for trading, with the wink and a nod-understanding between the babies and their lawyers that if the stock pops the complaint will be pulled and if it doesn’t we’ll grab a stick and join with Mr. Obama in whacking one of his favorite piñatas: Wall Street, specifically Morgan Stanley this week after JP Morgan the prior week, and likely Goldman Sachs again in the weeks to come. In other words, we’ll gladly take the upside, we’ll sue if we lose, and nobody will question our motives as long as the president keeps publicly sticking pins in his financial voodoo doll.
What a crock. If Congress wants to do something constructive for a change it ought to pass a law which states you can’t play the market if you’re still on Pablum.
The administration-accommodating media jumped immediately at the opportunity with a knee-jerk scorching of The Street to once again curry favor for the prince who would be king, giving full credence to the complaints without so much as interviewing the book running manager, any number of syndicate heads, or seeking a confirmation of numbers with respect to the book of interest prior to the offering. The true investigation should center around those making the complaints and who is behind the assertions, for to suggest that so much is known about an IPO mere days into trading is as asinine as writing about the outcome of a baseball game with one out in the top of the first inning. With so many pre-fabricated lawsuits at the ready it is not a stretch to suggest that a handful of obeisant law firms were tapped by this administration in advance of the well publicized offering in order to further roil the waters of a public increasingly conditioned to believe there is something inherently evil about having money over which the government has no control, as if Congress and this administration have not demonstrated heretofore unimaginable levels of ineptitude. The reality is that the first twelve trading hours of the Facebook stock provided ample opportunity for investors to net a 10% profit, which apparently is no longer enough. Moreover, the concept of a good underwriting is to price a stock so that it trades within a predictable range either side of the offering price and NOT so that it roars 40% in the first day, yet once again the media did nothing to educate and instead lazily tossed propellant onto a contrived inferno.
It strikes me as odd that no psychology PhD candidate has ever written a thesis about why employees of major media outlets uniformly act like hatchlings with beaks agape awaiting Mother Liberalism to drop another worm in their mouths. Are there special tests given prior to employment for genetic factors and congenital conditions that preclude integrity? Are lobotomies part of the orientation at the likes of the New York Times, CNN, or MSNBC or is it more of an elaborate, candle-lit ritual like in Animal House where new inductees bend over and say, “Thank you, Sir. May I have another?” What other explanation causes the perception of truth, principles, and logic to matter distinctly in certain circumstances and not considered to exist in others?
When Mr. Obama lies it is reported as truthful. He says he did the right thing in Libya in front of a graduating class at the Air Force Academy while conveniently omitting the calamitous reality his actions enabled radical muslim factions to garner obscene geo-political advantage. He says our country’s reputation in the world has never been better even though Europe rightfully no longer hides its contempt for his smug ineptness, Putin is salivating, and the Chinese refer to him openly as “bai chi.” When his operatives circulate another falsehood the media is certain to make sure it gets plenty of water as he now tries to assign his lunatic-fringe stimulus spending to President Bush by shuffling accounting years.
Hillary Clinton, once co-prevaricator in chief, claimed to have been named for Sir Edmund Hillary, though the New Zealand beekeeper didn’t conquer Mt. Everest until six years after her birth. Clinton supposedly survived sniper fire in Sarajevo years later and spuriously suggested her daughter was in peril during the radical islam assault of 9/11 when she was actually asleep several miles away, and a majority of the media shrugs off these blatant misrepresentations without a peep, and this sliding scale of ethics (as profound an oxymoron as saying someone is pretty ugly) common to the species has never been more apparent than how Elizabeth Warren remains relatively unscathed after knowingly and falsely exploiting race for the sake of unearned academic advancement without a scintilla of proof of Native American heritage. No shirt? No shoes? No facts? No problem.
I have been called a lot of things, though Native American has never been one of them despite the fact that my cheekbones are high “like all Indians.” The family tree is well established so there’s no point to research it needlessly, but the next time a contract comes up I’m claiming minority status to see what advantage it provides. If high cheekbones are the only criteria to claim Native bloodlines and gain favor, I’m in like flint.