for 26 July 2000. Updated every WEEKDAY. |
![[Tim Cavanaugh]](/fish/staff/images/tim.gif)
Tim Cavanaugh Special Guest Editor 
Terry Colon Art Director 
Heather Havrilesky Senior Editor ![[Phillip Bailey]](/fish/staff/images/phil.gif){kind=small}
Phillip Bailey Production Editor 
Joey Anuff Publisher 
|
Filler Dear Polly, Why did you never tell us before that your friend Steve was a doctor? Duh, every woman dreams of dating a real M.D. with a stethoscope and stirrups uh, tongue depressors? Well, anyway, it's too late now because I'm seeing a surgeon who can sew people up but won't fix a loose button on his shirt. We all, sooner or later, find ourselves with a talentless, defensive, deeply lazy man of our own. At least he pays the rent. Sommer Good thing he does something, because you're not going to see him much. Now or ever. Or maybe that's actually a bonus. Nice scheme, lady! I'm not so sure that every woman currently dreams of dating a real M.D. If they do, then Steve must be even less appealing than I think he is. Which doesn't seem possible. Yes, I'm joking. Steve is dreamy! Especially now that he has great big muscles from doing the Tae Bo in his unitard. Women of Seattle, avert your eyes or lose your hearts! Polly  Dear Polly, What is rolfing? My copy of The Oxford Illustrated Dictionary has neither a definition nor a picture. Sincerely, Roger As far as I can tell, rolfing is some kind of really deep tissue massage administered by an attractive gay man. Playgirl might have the pictures you're looking for. Polly Polly, you've guided me through four years of my life so far, providing me with what kind of women to avoid, (seemingly) deep thoughts on relationships these days and all that other shit you talk about. Does anybody stay together anymore? Do marriages last anymore? Is Steve still single because what he "believes in" is that staying single the rest of his life is the only true road to happiness these days, and the whole idea of marriage is out dated and usually means more strife than happiness? I'm starting to wonder if the only time we see things clearly at all is when we're not trapped in a relationship. I see people married, engaged or in some kind of steady relationship and think they're just fools, kidding themselves into believing what they have is special when I know it won't last. Still, maybe it's nothing to get depressed about? Maybe now that marriage isn't necessary for survival, as it was in the past, we're finding out how polygamous we really are? If you can find a point in this email somewhere let me know. Chris Thanks for writing. Your suggestion that Steve is choosing to stay single because he believes it's the only true road to happiness — that was good for several weeks of laughs, at least. Steve stays single by default, not by choice. You're just going to have to trust me on that one. Marriage usually means more strife than happiness because people are usually more selfish than generous. That doesn't mean that individually, we should choose not to marry. And yes, we see things very clearly when we're not trapped in a relationship. The question is, do you want to see things clearly? I, for one, most certainly don't. I think we're finding out how selfish and shiftless and impatient we really are, not how polygamous we really are. Polygamy's a great concept: Variety! But variety isn't that appealing without quality, and I, for one, meet a man I'm truly attracted to about once every three years. I guess I could just add on a new husband every three years, and the most recent one would have to move into one of the other bedrooms, dedicated to the older, more used-up husbands. The older husbands would have to share bedrooms — maybe they'd even be friends. Well, they'd have to make friends, since they'd be spending so much time together, cleaning and shopping for food, and cooking, and sewing little outfits for themselves... Ok, now I'm lost in a fantasy....Where were we? Look, I've guided you through four years of your life so far. Please, it's time to move on. Haven't I done enough damage already? At least move out of the master bedroom... Polly The Hardship of Accounting Ambrose, I liked this one! Having been a whistle blower myself as a result of months of pissing in the wind... When somone wants to cover something up in a corporate envirnment it is easy, just do your job. Now how about taking on the buying of elected postions? David A. Dorney I would love to take on the buying of elected positions. Now, do you have a checking account? Ambrose Beers Bravo Beers! You've never ceased to amaze me with your tight, and dare I say "journalistic" essays. I emphasize journalism because nowadays it seems about as likely as Jesse Helms at the Apollo to read actually well written prose that would make E. R. Murrow proud. Sniff, this brings a tear to my fluff overloaded eyes. I'm simply in awe. The only one sad or funny thing (sadly funny?) as happens too often on Suck, being a long term subscriber for four years, is thanks to Wired's random banner ad machine, the article and the advertisement were at odds with each other. While reading through your first half of the, very well done I must say, general slams on the flim-flammery of meaningless paper exchange that is commonly known as the stock market, the banner ad under read "Free Professional Stock Research" by iexchange.com. Not anyone's fault per se, this card shuffle game of concentration with horribly mutual exclusive cards coming up is sometimes irksome to readers. One final note, the people who set up the stock market I liken very much to the lawyers. Both fields come up with either arcane or confusing double-speak-esqe languages to describe what they are about, which, in turn, is supposed to keep those of us non-Kennedy types from having a clue, say, or a piece of the action. Although I'm not sure if there is an e-lawyer.com (or is there?) that breaks down legal-ease (oxymoron) into laymen's terms, we have our e-trade.coms which supposedly makes it so anyone can gamble and suck from the giant teat of prosperity. Of course, I guess anyone can get into the big stock players pyramid schemes for very little money down. And as we could guess, nobody is going to complain as long as most the people in the know are knowingly winking and nudging. Thanks again and keep up the incredibly engaging work. Suckerpunch Jesse Helms at the Apollo would be a hell of a show. Short, but a hell of a show. And as for the banner ads, try to get past this notion of the ads being "at odds with" the editorial content. We prefer to think of the whole thing as cleverly ironic. Thanks, Ambrose Beers Thank you. The tightly controlled rage of your article was most appreciated. Best regards, Allegra Sloman (Mrs.) <allegra.sloman@xantrex.com> So many people could have saved themselves so much time and effort if they could have just realized, as you have, that my rage is tightly controlled. I mean, I tried to make them understand, you know? Thanks, Ambrose Beers Have a look at these schmucks, old bean: http://thorby.com/AboutUs.asp Your Source, L.Ron <l_ron_hubbard_@hotmail.com> Pretty nearly priceless, that one. Thanks. Knowlege is strength, Ambrose Beers Dear AB: I was actually rather directly involved in a scam just like the Comp-u-Card fiasco; indeed, it was so exactly like it , down to the products sold and the way the numbers were rigged, that I still suspect some of the same people must have been involved. Only the dollar amounts were smaller, and that only because it occurred a bit earlier in the Long Boom. No, I didn't go to jail. Indeed, I went to the CEO and expressed concern that some of the numbers that were being used to justify this and that didn't seem to make sense to me. He patted me on my cute little head andv told me I just didn't understand modern accounting (true); that the accountants had all signed off on it (also true); and it was how businesses grew these days (also true). When a great empire finally perished, felony warrants were discussed - loudly - but never actually served. No sentient life forms were harmed; the capitalization was British, and itself based upon British accounting principles that are even looser than US principles. Last I heard, the CEO was in Florida, which figures. I never even had to testify. Which is a long way of saying that your analysis is dead on. The problem isn't the laws, which are as good as they need to be. The problem is a bit older than that: Who will watch the watchmen? Gee, that phrase seems to predate modern accounting and double-entry bookkeeping by a good 2000 years. Isn't progress wonderful? PS: I caught that "[sic]" if nobody else did. Nice to know that there's still someone left who knows the proper use of the word "comprise." Alan S Kornheiser <askornheiser@prodigy.net> I'm sorry, but I was unable to get past the sentence, "I was actually rather directly involved in a scam just like the Comp-u-Card fiasco" without feeling obliged to Mirandize you. I will finish reading your email only in the company of your lawyer. (sic), Ambrose Beers Jesus christ man you would have no idea how wide spread this is. Working as a computer programmer writing custom apps and maintaining accounting databases from 1996-1999, I can tell you that my job was basically to launder money -- legally. It goes like this. Accounting databases keep the pretallied results stored as well as the line items. Per account balances, per invoice totals, per purchase order totals, per period totals. They *store* these, as well as the line items. The totals are what are printed on reports, what is reported to the government, what taxes are paid on. It's only when they are audited that the line items are consulted, and then there are just so many volumes (gigabytes) of detail that most auditors kind of skip em. Plus the raw data for the calculations is stored in various archaic and obfuscated ways -- it's usually a quite complicated bit of algebra and set theory to validate it -- because the accounting programs calculate the results for one transaction at a time -- it's kind of hard to look at it all in one take, especially for a good sized company. Okay. Here's the cheating part: the totals are what are vouched for as correct, and they *mostly* match the details, but more often than not there's about 10 percent of fuzz where they don't (weird entry practices by clerks, glitches, counter right offs, &c). My job was to actually (get this) REWRITE the details table to make it sum up to what the totals said. Remember, the auditors are only looking at the totals, and red flags are only set off if the computer says "hey that don't match" if you have one hundred thousand transactions per period. A lot of people say I must be full of shit but I can't tell you the number of times during those three years I was asked to rewrite detail tables. I finally had to leave the business -- I felt so guilty. The problem lies in the fact that businesses have two wallets (unlike individuals) : one they take money out of (a/p) and one they put money into (a/r). You switch from being a small time player to being a big boy by maximizing both, and just because you run out of money in one doesn't mean you have to stop taking from the other. I shit you not: there is no difference in the motivation nor the actual practice of business by executives or drug dealers. Only one wears a suit. They play the same fucking games. I am not a whiner. I'm just freaked out because I saw with my own eyes the depths and balls of the cheating that turns our society's wheels, and the only reason i could perceive it was my math background. Hell they *hired* me because of it. I used to explain it like this: a hamburger tastes great but you don't want to see it made. Similary, this economy feels great but you don't want to know how it's achieved. -- I try not to think about it, but rest assured: you have only scratched the surface of this problem. It's endemic. Tom Ballard <mot_drallab@hotmail.com> Well, sure. But drug dealers are more likely to push piles of cocaine around on a table with the butt of a shotgun and shout things like, "fuck with me, you fuck with death." Other than that, I'm with you all the way. Thanks for an informative — that is, a depressing — email. It's enough to make a man suspect that Amazon.com isn't turning a profit. Ambrose Beers |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
 
|