Although it has not been definitively determined that Olympus was connected to the yakusa (organized crime network), perhaps most in Japan would not be miffed by such a revelation, as there is a cultural acceptability of this syndicate which, like the southern Italian mafia, provides sustenance when legitimate sources fail. Still, crime is crime, and investor losses that could have been prevented with more transparency provide fodder for, and even mandate, closer scrutiny.
Did any on this Apug board actually lose money? Do you agree with my inferred assessment that none of us have the right to overlook such secrecy even if we personally benefit from such omission and prevarication? Japan is not the sole focus here, as this scenario overflows onto Wall Street and politics in general. And, as a leftist (basically, but not entirely), I am quick to also find fault with 'my own' political bedfellows, including gays with, what I consider to be, their shallow culture. No one should escape scrutiny. Do we need to voice dissent from that which becomes 'social acceptance' but always, steadfastly, remains (at least theoretically) malfeasance? Where do our obligations begin and where do they end?
When WE 'overlook through convenience' should we be so quick to condemn the side that we do not support (with the added flavor of hypocrisy)? As an example, supporters' diehard acceptance of Herman Cain's alleged sexual misconduct as 'much over nothing' seems to me to be upheld most virulently amongst the same types who castigated (and helped to impeach!) Bill Clinton for lesser sexual 'crimes'. And, alas, most cannot even see the duplicity when the hot fever of passion provides ballast and support for such dichotomous thinking. - David Lyga.
Did any on this Apug board actually lose money? Do you agree with my inferred assessment that none of us have the right to overlook such secrecy even if we personally benefit from such omission and prevarication? Japan is not the sole focus here, as this scenario overflows onto Wall Street and politics in general. And, as a leftist (basically, but not entirely), I am quick to also find fault with 'my own' political bedfellows, including gays with, what I consider to be, their shallow culture. No one should escape scrutiny. Do we need to voice dissent from that which becomes 'social acceptance' but always, steadfastly, remains (at least theoretically) malfeasance? Where do our obligations begin and where do they end?
When WE 'overlook through convenience' should we be so quick to condemn the side that we do not support (with the added flavor of hypocrisy)? As an example, supporters' diehard acceptance of Herman Cain's alleged sexual misconduct as 'much over nothing' seems to me to be upheld most virulently amongst the same types who castigated (and helped to impeach!) Bill Clinton for lesser sexual 'crimes'. And, alas, most cannot even see the duplicity when the hot fever of passion provides ballast and support for such dichotomous thinking. - David Lyga.
Last edited by a moderator:
