Off on a Tangent: Intriguing Quotes
May 21, 2009, 8:09 am
Every once in awhile, quotes in articles will catch me by surprise. Here are four where I’ve pondered whether I’m mis-reading the stories. As usual, all articles are from the Contra Costa Times.
1. From the article “The decision is not always the final word” (May 10, 2009; p. I1) by Kenneth Harney: “…Laurie Janik, general counsel of the National Association of Realtors, defends the fees, arguing that brokers “ought to be able to charge what they need to make a profit.”"
“…charge what they need…”? Really? In the context of the article, that quote makes a little sense. But it’s an amazing statement. If it were true, then it wouldn’t matter how much any company spent to make a product or provide a service: add an additional charge so that there’s a profit. How absurd. Thank God GM, Chrysler, AIG and thousands of other companies can’t abide by this “ought to.”
That statement flies in the face of what business is all about. If you can’t produce something at less cost than what anybody will pay for it, then you don’t have a business. (BTW: the article is about real estate brokers tacking on “Admin Charges” to closing costs with no clear link to any activity or service).
2. The article “Three acquitted of aiding London bombers” (April 29, 2009; AA4) relates to the trials of three suspects in the suicide bombings in London in 2005. It is explained that (at least on the other side of the pond?) “Evidence of connections between suspects and convicted terrorists is often withheld because of fears that would prejudice jurors against the suspects.”
I have no issue with the trials or the results. HYPOTHETICALLY, what I wonder about is, if the planning of an attack took place entirely over cell phones and e-mail messages between a suspect and a convicted terrorist, would the existence of those messages, and the transcripts of that traffic, be withheld?
3. I hope the next sample is simply a “timing issue.” In “Robbers steal surveillance cameras, but leave the footage” (May 2, 2009) the video is described: “”We have footage (of a suspect)” wearing a stocking mask, sweatshirt and gloves.”
You now, if the video shows a guy dressed like that in a store that was robbed, taking goods; isn’t he, in fact, the robber? The person in the video is not a suspect: he’s actually the guy stealing the stuff. Now, with the mask he may not be able to be identified, but that’s a totally different issue (which is why anybody brought in for questioning is a suspect because one isn’t sure). But on the tape, isn’t the guy in the mask the robber?
4. And finally, in “White House under ‘cloud of suspicion’” (Date unknown; p. A9), White House spokesman Tony Fratto said: “I think Scott has probably told everyone everything he doesn’t know, so I don’t know if anyone should expect him to say anything new today.”
Hey! I just like that quote.
Bill
William A. Stong
Email: william.a.stong@gmail.com
SBF&P # 14
© 2009 Integrated Profitability TM
Subscribe to our blogs using either our 
