The number one breakfast in America is not eggs and bacon, or even Cheerios as one might guess, rather it’s Pizza. This is what happens when people are allowed to make their own choices, they eat pizza for breakfast- the horror. Although I have yet to see Kelogg’s make pizza flavored frosted flakes, this is where Kelogg’s becomes a market manipulator, rather than a servicer of the wants and needs of consumers. Alternatively, any instruction by a manufacturer premised upon the notion of health or safety is disguised paternalism which otherwise means that big companies do not trust their own consumers to be their own best decision makers.

The manipulation of wants and needs is big business. Advertising is a multibillion dollar a year industry. What this means is that manufacturers are spending a lot of money in an effort to tell you, the consumer, what to buy, what to eat, and what not to wear. Furthermore, this means that your genuine wants and needs are being replaced by artificial constructs. In this system, values become baseless, trivial.

For example, it seems to cause a bit of confusions (at least to me) when advertisements on one side of the road define beauty in the form of a slender, and aesthetically pleasing young model showing off this seasons newest outfit while across the street there are ads which insist on things like: “Papa Johns’- Two Large, One Topping Pizza’s - $16.99.” You can’t have the best of both worlds, and you certainly cannot live life walking only one side of the street though some do try.

If resistance is “the popular refusal to be manipulated in a particular choice of pleasures,” then most of us as consumers, can’t say “no.” This is due to different advertising techniques, which continue to make consumers believe that they would be “better off” with the acquisition of a certain product. The More You Have, The Better Off You Are. Marketing agencies develop schemes to create artificial relationships between both the consumer and the product, and the consumer as that person sees their self in relation to other consumers.

Thus, Pizza for breakfast represents two things: First, it represents an “appetite” for genuine wants and needs which, admittedly, probably has a low nutritional value even though possibly the entire food pyramid is incorporated into a slice of pizza, and secondly (and most importantly), it represents the freedom of choice.

Alternatively, advertising has been used in a way to distract. From what I can gather, this means that ads become emotionally charged in order to focus the consumer’s attention on something other than parting with an inordinate amount of money for something of significantly less or no value.

Going Green. I don’t believe in “going green.” It is my personal, and unfounded belief that it is just another way for people in a position of rhetorical sway to convince us to give them more of our money. It’s like a social consciousness tax.

Firstly it seems to me that “going green” is some sort of weird experiment masqueraded as a trend which is further cloaked beneath the “understanding” that the way we as humans in modern society are living, is harmful. I agree that the way we are living is harmful, but for different reasons. I think that the way most people live – get up, eat junk, go to work, eat junk, come home, eat home cooked junk (for those who are lucky), watch television, sleep, and repeat- is probably harmful. But, for any thing that I begin to see celebrities become spokespersons for, I become suspicious (as you should).

Recycling consumes more energy than produced, and “green” products are more expensive then their non-green counterparts. I am by no means advocating a lifestyle of wastefulness, all I am saying is that I think recycling, and going “green” can be interpreted as wasteful. The markup on these “conventional” ways of life self-incorporate their very own feel-good sense of morality. Spend More, Go Green, You Did The Right Thing. Most people who are patting themselves on the back right now have either: 1. empty pockets, or 2. Pockets large enough so that the patting never stops.

So, I say let them eat pizza, and heavily regulate commercial speech. Advertising as a type of commercial speech is harmful. It does not allow consumers to make actual informed choices, rather it allows large companies to manipulate choices (even if consumers are taught to believe what they are doing is actually right).

*Long Live Triviality! Most of the ideas from the above come from The Death of Discourse by Collins & Skover (1996). Except for many things, notably my feelings and facts regarding pizza.

Pictures lie. People lie. Cat Stevens is NOT the singer of the song Cat’s in the Cradle, Harry Chapin was, and if that isn’t enough to squelch the hairs of your naïve chest, well, then, you are a stronger person than I.

Avatar was good. That is a simple statement for a purportedly “complex” and “expensive” movie. The movie runs approximately 2 hours and 40 minutes. TWO HOURS AND FORTY MINUTES OF LIFE, OF YOUR LIFE, IS DEDICATED TO WATCHING A STORY THAT COULD HAVE BEEN TOLD IN 60 MINUTES… TOPS. TAKE THAT AND MULTIPLY IT BY THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE WHO WILL SEE THIS MOVIE DURING THE WEEKEND AND DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH SPARE TIME YOU COULD HAVE? I don’t either, but I am sure it is enough to allow a village of people to not do anything for a very long time.

Avatar was in 3D. In retrospect I guess the 3D did enhance the movie, but I don’t know if you are like me in the sense that I get extremely disappointed when watching stuff in 3D because its nothing more than a visual tease. “You can look, but you cannot touch.”

Now for the good. The movie did have some good eye candy. The scenes were beautiful even if the computer generated (enhanced) actors appeared to resemble what one person called “Ferngully for adults.” I did not want to see this movie, and I have still not decided whether I am content for seeing it. I will let most of you know personally in a week or so.

Propaganda. Yes. I said it. Avatar is subtle propaganda and consecutively represents a trend. The message received through the film is that humans need to be more conscious of the environment and should stop basing decisions off of a fetish for money. The trend however is that there have been several contemporary blockbusters which have portrayed humans as antagonists rather than the protagonist. There are two ironies (one of which comes from the results of the propaganda and the other is from the trend). The first irony is that if you believe in the natural scheme of things, then every thing that humans are doing, is the product of natural reactions. There is just no way around this. Humans did not alter the environment. This means that pollution and littering is per se natural even though we (naturally) have taught ourselves that this is bad. This is selfish because the only reason why littering is bad is because we have discovered that in the aggregate pollution is bad for us. Don’t be fooled: Littering creates jobs! The second irony is that Hollywood actors are making millions of dollars for teaching us about the evils of making decisions based off of a pecuniary interest. I guess there are no better teachers. As for their environmental concerns, a lot of actors can either a) afford environmentally conscious automobiles and homes, or b) have cars (many) and (many) homes that consume wasteful amounts of energy. IT IS NOT CHEAP TO BE GREEN BUT TO BE GREEN IS TO BE TRENDY, AND BEING TRENDY COSTS MONEY.

In the News. I find it odd that Avatar debuted at around the same time when it was reported that scientists discovered a new planet, GJ1214b, forty light years away from earth. Please note: a light year is measured by an object traveling at the speed of light (186,000 miles per second) over the course of one calendar year. So, this planet’s distance would be measured by you (and your luggage) going at that speed for 40 years. What this means is that it’s probably nonstop, and several meals will be served. This new planet is approximately 2.5 times the size of earth and DOES contain water (albeit at 400 degrees Fahrenheit). (See National Geographic)

Onwards. As an experiment I have activated my facebook account. I will leave the account activated throughout winter break. I am about 99% positive that I will delete (suspend) it subsequently.

Katherine Mackinnon hates pornography. She says that pornography leads to the degradation of women, and that it promotes negative attitudes towards women in society. The only reason why Ms. MacKinnon has not been able to inculcate the legislature into adopting laws that proscribe this is due to the fact that women cannot be pleased. Kidding. Rather, it is due to the fact that no one (legislature or otherwise) has been able to write such a statute without violating a content-based restriction, which is prohibited by the first amendment (oh, and also because the legislature has too many men in it).

On television right now is a movie, Little Women (1994), it appears to take place in the nineteenth century (circa 1880’s). One of the women characters is talking about “existentialism” and other romantic philosophies. She is a woman who is grounded in logic- that is her character. I see her as powerful.

I see this woman character as powerful because she defies the chauvinist stereotypes of women- namely she does not have a penis and is logical (unguided primarily by emotions). This is interesting because movies destroy historical boundaries. Manipulation. For example, it is interesting to watch characters on television act like people from another era, being that the actors have the hindsight of history while those whom they are imitating, did not. If they did, it would be an introspective nightmare. This is the difference between the imitation and the genuine. Something tells me that there is a bit of a discrepancy but this is not fatal.

Cougars are trendy. They are trendy because they are sexy. This statement represents society looking at women with chauvinist blinders. Cougars, in my opinion are sexy, but more importantly, they are sexy for reason other than sex appeal. This concept, the “Cougar”, is in my opinion, one of the most significant changes in the past 100 years in regards to the way the western world understands women. Certainly there is a bit of a novelty in an attractive older mature woman “preying” on younger men. It is the idea of experience being mixed with the inversion in gender roles. The historical hunter now becomes the hunted.

Women in this position represent something that most of us see, but fail to acknowledge. Being a Cougar means that you are a woman who is dominant, and you are powerful. This is why this trend is significant. For the first time it takes a class of women, and elevates them beyond any androcentric grips. And, while machismo culture tries to absorb and trivialize the impact of older women taking advantage of younger men, it fails. This sorta thing just doesn’t happen to guys.

Men are now being portrayed as the naïve: those whom can be taken advantage of. Women, especially mature women, are portrayed in a light that revolved around sophistication, intelligence, and well-being. There is sex appeal because she is beautiful (regardless of age, or it could be that age adds beauty). Younger women want to be her, men of all ages want to be with her. She has her choice, and it is as if women’s suffrage never was although I see the Cougar concept as somewhat reactionary to a solemn history of mistreatment towards women. That is, the “Cougar” could not have been born, but for the historical harsh, and unjustified attitudes of society towards women.

Though there is a bit of a fallacy in all of this: women seen as Cougars are still victimized (contrary to everything above). They are victimized in the sense that the “Cougar” still objectifies the woman as a trendy sexual novelty. This does not have to be, and as social mores change, the beliefs, attitudes, and behavior of people do too (whether they were the stimulus or those who were influenced). The fate of how women will historically be viewed and understood now has its fate in the hands of a class of women composed of those in Gen X – Baby Boomers. This is being challenged by the media.

Feminists got what they wanted. Ironically they got what they wanted out of everything they learned and taught to hate.

I am fairly certain that there are three things in life that should never be economized. Those things are: doctors, attorneys, and tattoo artists. Doing so might result in: death, being put to death, and dying very slow and painfully.

I don’t know where Obama’s decision to send 30,000 more troops overseas falls, but I am confident by saying that he probably made the right move. Speaking of the economy…

Record Shops Are So Yesteryear: Record stores (stores that solely sell music, and music merchandise/memorabilia) are dead, and if they are not dead in your community yet, I can assure you they are suffering from what can only be considered economic necrosis. This has led to the development of two things: First, from now on, the only brick and mortar stores that can afford to sell music in tangible media are those stores that also sell other things (e.g., BestBuy, Target, etc.). Second, because of the reasoning in thing #1, the demand for tangible music media will diminish. Surely, this cripples any chance of a possible music store revival but it bolsters the proposition that all music from now on will only exist in nontangible-electronic form (unless you buy it used through an e-outlet/auction site).

Why this is a good thing. Because music distribution will no longer require things like jewel cases, and actual discs/tapes, the price of music production will [should] decrease. This enables sites like Amazon and iTunes to provide the same music to us, cheaper. I have two more speculations. The first is that this makes music easier to access. Ease of access allows people to purchase music on a whim, which means that we now spend money even more whimsically. Subtract from this the number of potential revenues lost due to pirating which leads to my second proposition: the figure resulting from proposition #1 is either a greater or lower figure than music artists were or currently are making and this either makes me sad or happier.

Additionally, I now enjoy the fact that I can purchase single songs that are not designated “singles” and am not forced to purchase music that I didn’t want to hear nor pay for. Also, I am happy that I am no longer paying for jewel cases (which takes up space!), shipping/distribution… you get the point. CUT THE MIDDLE MEN OUT.

Time is money and having access to entire libraries of music, right at our fingertips, helps us save. No more leaving home, wasting gas, and wasting time. By the time I brush my teeth in the morning I have new music ready for the car ride to [destination].

Why this is a bad thing. I am sure someone lost his or her job. See Laziness. Also, record store were/are a fun venue. You can’t make friends sequestered in a corner in your home with the lights off, wearing nothing but socks, and a hat that looks like a sock, purchasing songs like: 3 (Britney Spears), and Poker Face (Lady GaGa).

“2 Philly Burgers for Just $4”- Checkers Advertisement. Enough said.

So, while economizing might be bad for certain things, it surely is good for others. ITS PAYBACK TIME DREAD. Sending 30,000 troops is going to cost us a lot. I am fine with this because we now have a deficit so large that no one can comprehend the gravity of the actual figure (of debt) and when this happens, I am of the belief that everyone will just forget about it, just as we will forget about music stores.

I got an email this morning from one of my banks (Bank Atlantic), asking me to befriend it on Facebook. While I don’t have Facebook, I can assure you that I am not friendly towards banks. This started to bother me… Why would Bank Atlantic want to be my friend? How does a bank have any friends at all? What would Bank Atlantic say if it knew that I did most of my banking at Bank of America?

All of these questions deserve no merit because what has happened is that institutions (for example banks) have begun attempting to recapture that nostalgic image of ye old neighborhood bank. This is the sort of image where the tellers know you by name, and they know you because they did banking with your dad- he is still a customer. This is manipulation.

Unfortunately times are not like that anymore, and under this phony veil of close-knit-intimate-banking is nothing more than a force that is really trying to take advantage of people who have been taken advantage of too much. Neighborhood banks have died out in part because they cannot compete with global banks that have dominated electronic banking. There is no such thing as a “banker” anymore, and behind the counters are automatons. Take a deposit, give money- transfer funds. Limited discretion. Your friendly banker has been replaced with some schmuck in a suit, who probably just made it beyond 9^th grade algebra. He knows how to read reports, therefore he is the man for the job- he is otherwise known as the “branch manager.”

On the phone are “representatives” who can read computer screens and scripts. Banking is no longer personal.

Policy, Policy, Policy. That is the dogma of the bank. “No ma’am, I cannot waive your overdraft fee- that is the policy of the bank.” “But ma’am, I’m not going to tell you again- you agreed to this when you signed up…” [Insert unsophisticated account holder next to institionalized bank's intimidation tactic here]

This is the sort of bewildering story I was told by a friend of mine who insists that she is always right. This time I have to give her credit because she was right (we’ll kinda).

“Banks are out to get you (the consumer)” she explained to me. “Take overdraft fees for example: If you have a certain amount of funds in your bank account and there are four charges that are about to ‘hit,’ the bank will take the one charge which will cause your account to overdraw and then apply the rest of the charges in order to assess multiple overdraft fees.”

For example:

If you have $100 and there are subsequent charges which are going to “hit”- $34.00, $59.00, and $100.01- the bank will first apply the charge for $100.01- which causes your account to go into the negative by .01 (overdraft fee number 1). Then the bank will apply the $34.00 and $59.00 charges (overdraft fee number 2, and 3). This is deceptive because the bank is now getting three overdraft fees and could have avoided two of them by applying the lesser amounts to the initial positive balance in the bank account (which would have left a nominal surplus), and then applying the largest charge to overdraft the account only once.

“Its not right!” she exclaimed. “I heard from a former banking executive that I could opt-out of the overdraft program.” “This would just cause my card to be declined in POS purchases if there are insufficient funds. “But, [REDACTED], some people might find it attractive not to be declined in a point of sale transaction and would rather pay the $35.00 fee later.” I said. Furthermore I added, “they might think that a $35.00 fee is worth not being publicly embarrassed.” “Yea, but most people don’t even know they have the option to opt-out” she explained.

So, I did my research and while Regulation E (the guidelines for electronic banking) was amended to allow consumers to opt out of bank overdraft provisions, they do not take effect until July and August of 2010.

See: http://blogs.consumerreports.org/money/2009/11/federal-reserve-debit-card-overdraft-rules-expensive-overdraft-fees-opt-in-permission.html

And See: http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/20091112a.htm

Despite all of this, the best way to avoid overdrafts is to keep track of your account. Certainly it is not the banks fault for the consumer’s irresponsible spending, but there is a sense of culpability when the bank is taking money (unnecessarily) from the pockets of people who cant afford the pants they are wearing.

I’m listening to Raid the Radio by General Elektriks. You should listen to them. You would like them even though I have no clue who you are or what you like.

As I listen to this song it makes me think about subtle revolutions (subtle revolutions?). I guess that would be a slow-evolving revolution, which further makes me think of Google.

Google is releasing it’s Chrome operating system this Friday. I would be happy for this but I’m concerned. My concerns are summed up in one point with three subparts….

Google is subversive socialism. Inherent in googology is the notion that everything is free. This is a problem because Google is one of the only company’s who can actually afford to make everything free, and as a result, Google poses a genuine threat to service providers who offer similar substitutes at a premium.

Google Socialist Point # 1 – Socialism takes money (literally).

This is interesting because it appears as though only a capitalistic culture, such as ours, has actually made it possible for this to happen. Thus, it costs a lot of money to have something that closely resembles socialism. And who said money couldn’t buy happiness?

Google derives revenues from advertising. Those monies are then used to acquire smaller companies, and then the services that those companies offered become free or extremely cheap. For example, Google’s acquisition of a babybell provider is now Google Voice. In Mount View California, Google offers free wifi to residents. Yet another service that Google offers is free scholarly research.

Although there is no crystallization of a threat to telco, ISP, and westlaw/lexisnexis providers, I can assure you that the threat is real (I’m about as much as an economist as the next guy) and because Google is able to improve those services (which people are used to paying for) for free, it is incentivizing people to switch.

Although I don’t think that Google can subsidize the world, I, on the other hand do think that the Google model will eventually become too adverse for its own good. Certainly competing with your own advertisers (those silly little companies which you derive revenue from), and then beating them at their own service, seems similar to a passenger gnawing at the wings of an airplane at 30,000 feet

Google Socialist Point # 2 – Socialism has no style, but is simple.

But, if Google is socialism, then socialism is bland and I mean bland like corduroy. Even Google’s icon is nothing more than a bleak pantone and this bleakness seems to bleed into every service that they offer. People like to see intense GUI’s (Graphical User Interfaces). When a free operating system (chrome), or email (gmail), or voice mail (google voice), etc… has no attractive user interface, people will probably be reluctant to take advantage of these services. Although the service and technology is there (and working), people like buttons that pop, crisp graphics, and fluid screens. But, in Google’s defense, it could be that these things are sacrificed in the name of two things- Simplicity and Functionality.

This leads me to my next point. People are dumb, and Google is simple. Or at least that is what one would think from using its services and that is why Google is a success. Certainly any design (or lack thereof) that Google uses (or doesn’t use) would tend to distract people from fully understanding how Google’s services work and operate. Though it is possible that people are greedy, and they want as much as they can get for free, maybe these beggars really are choosers. Fluid interfaces would make people believe that they are getting more for their (non)money.

Even Android, Google’s mobile OS is boring. And that sucks because people now have boring phones in a time when our expectations for the functionality and design of mobile phones is putting the most in the least.

Google Socialist Point # 3 – Inform and Connect (The People).

Another socialist coincidence is that Google seeks to connect people. I mean, really connect people. In fact, if they aren’t providing a large technological black hole to unlimited amounts of information, they are only connecting people. This too is strange because it seems like in order to have socialism, people need to have free access to information. Google not only does this, but it provides access to unlimited amounts of information from almost anywhere.

This causes people to become less self reliant, and more dependent upon Google. This is dangerous.

Well, we’re tired of hearing the same old song and while Google is like a new music, its boring. But, for now, it’s something that I can dance to.

The Brooklyn Bridge is not for sale (again), but Pabst Brewing Company is. With an asking price of $300,000,000.00 – Three Hundred Meeeeelllllion (evil laugh), you can own a part of beer history. In other words, everything your parents ever wanted from you is now available for a pledge that ranges from $5 to $250,000.00.

Two advertising companies are “crowd sourcing” the capital investment and this has been bewildering me for the past couple of hours. Here is why I am confused:

First, it appears to me that this is an ingenious scheme by two companies to use little or none of their own assets in order to acquire Pabst. Rather, they are relying on other people, “the community,” to give them money (pledges) so that they can acquire a beer giant and reap the profits. In exchange for your pledge, they will send you a beer and a certificate. This is the next thing that confuses me…

As per a certificate, I wonder what it says. Does it purport to give the pledgor an equitable or beneficial ownership interest in the future of the company in regards to the proportion of the pledge? If so, doesn’t this violate securities regulations? If not, is this considered a donation? If it is a donation is it deductable from my personal federal income tax statement?

Certainly if this was a guarantee, a debenture, or an issuance of stock, they would have to own the company first in order to issue these types of certificates. Secondly, if they are issuing certificates, they probably have to register according to SEC regulations. But, for argument’s sake, lets just say that you are purchasing the piece of mind knowing that “you are investing in beer” and simultaneously making someone else, a heck-uv-alot richer.

If this is the case, at least I should be able to deduct the amount of my pledge from my annual personal federal income tax, right? Well, not exactly. Usually, tax deductions in this form are for “charitable donations.” That is, donations made by or on behalf of the donor to an organization with a charitable purpose (e.g., scientific, cultural, educational, literary, artistic, religious value, etc.) It would be hard for me to believe that “save the beer” is a legitimate charitable purpose. HOWEVER, I think that a plausible argument could be made that the pledge was made on behalf of the historical value of Pabst, and as such it might fit into one of the categories enumerated above.

Ultimately, I think there are a panoply of issues which the website www.buyabeercompany.com does not address. Certainly the offer is ambiguous at best. But, for every scammer there is a sucker, hopefully not $300,000,000.00 worth though.

I don’t know why I didn’t see it before. Behind the high pitched 15 year old voice, executives are making a substantial amount of money. This is not because Justin Bieber is a good musician, it is because people think he is a good musician in the way that people are superficially taught things. The fact is, Justin Bieber himself, is not a good musician. I am qualified to say this because I have listened to music at least once in the past. There is just no way possible to enjoy his lyrics, but, when combined with a studio beat, the lyrics become secondary, and the clashing of his high pitched voice make for the perfect formula- a new pop song is born.

Pop, as I understand it, is not music. Rather, Pop, is the commodification of music and a manipulation of the cultural understandings of people. For these people, these listeners, Pop defines the way they associate things such as: premature understandings of love, premature understandings of relationships, and further defines the way younger people interact and associate. In a sense, Pop, is a musical fairytale that seldom reaches beyond the naïve. The is apparent because naivety is demonstrated in correlation among Pop’s range of listeners. The younger the listeners are, the more concentration of sycophants there is. This then sharply diffuses in proportion to age.

Pop is not serious music and should not be taken as such. This is because while Pop gives the appearance of genuine emotion, it is actually a reflection of what it perceives, and how it perceives it’s listeners will feel. The reason for this is that people tend to purchase what they feel comfortable with and people feel comfortable with things that they can draw associations.

Pop removes all the intrinsic emotional, and brilliances that are found amongst non-Pop genres and is a cash-flow conspiracy backed by corporate tycoons, and tainted “producers.” But, this is not necessarily such a bad thing…

Because revenue’s generated from Pop music sales are so advantageous, it provides a fund of money which allows record labels to invest in musical talents, not falling into the pop category. Simply stated, when a record label invests in a pop “artist,” they are hedging on the guarantees of instant success, which then allows record companies to put out albums for artists who are not as, and will never be, as “successful” as pop artists.

This is a bit of a mystery because it appears that the success of non-pop music relies upon pop music sales (in an economic sense). This is further confirmed by the use of Usher is Justin Bieber’s music video. Usher does not perform, he merely appears, and the association (the endorsement) aids in increasing listeners (which translates into revenues).

So, all-in-all, Bieber is a myth. He is the front-man for executives who know how to manipulate music markets, but in a sad way, we need him. We need the successes of popstars in order for nonpopstars to disseminate their music by ways in which they otherwise would be foreclosed from doing. My guess is that electronic media and electronic distributors (e.g., iTunes, Amazon, etc.) should have an impact on this. The result of which should logically allow nonpopstars to become successful for nominal amounts of monies put up by the record companies in which they belong. While I would like to say something along the lines of “…this will lead to the end of the need for Pop music,” I just can’t. I can’t say it because, it is not true.

It is not true because the revenues that would be recycled into investing in nonpop artists are just transformed into profits. Superadd the thought that brick-and-mortar music stores will soon be a recollection in history, it makes for one heck of a profit now that CD’s will no longer need to be produced.

Additionally, it is also not true that Pop music is coming to an end because Pop music has characteristics similar to a cancer. One of these attributes is that it spreads, and once it spreads, people define themselves according to the messages conveyed. When people define themselves in such a way, they become devout, and when there is a devout following (+ the potential to make a lot of money) there is no incentive to stop making bad nonmusic such as Pop.

Blame profit, blame bad taste. Pop is an economic anachronism.

This law is still enforced as it is illegal (in FL) for a person to accept, facilitate, or place bets unless they are: (a) Native American, (b) a registered parimutual, (c) the government conducting a lottery, (d) all of the above.

Promoting Social Values

Another crime (in FL) is recognized by Florida Statutes 798.01, and 798.02. Together, these are known as Florida’s Adultery laws. In sum, Florida makes it a crime, to engage in what are considered adulterous acts. This can be seen as the law’s recognition and promotion of healthy family lifestyles, in accordance with traditional social mores. These laws promote and protect the values and sanctity of things such as marriage and the role of family.

But, as technology is making it easier for people to keep in touch, technology is also making it easier for people to meet. For example, take the Ashley Madison Agency. The Ashley Madison Agency is a website that promotes marital affairs. “Life is short, Have an Affair” says the homepage, which also states that it has over 4.5 million members. In fact, the website guarantees that it will “change your life” with the “Ashley Madison Affair Guarantee.”

As a student of the law, I see several issues with this website. Please keep in mind that none of this is to be taken as legal advice, rather I am merely proposing possible legal issues and not solutions. Readers should seek a licensed attorney for legal advice.

Issues

Criminal Solicitation AKA Advertising

Criminal Solicitation involves asking, enticing, inducing, or counseling another to commit a crime. Certainly, Ashley Madison’s advertisements are simultaneously asking, enticing, and even possibly counseling another to commit a crime, namely adultery. Thus, it can be seen that the Ashley Madison Agency might be vulnerable for criminal solicitation in states that recognize adultery as a crime. At common law, in order to be guilty, the solicitation must actually reach the other person. Therefore, all television advertisements seen, radio commercials heard, and emails received, would be considered individual counts for criminal solicitation. But, more shocking is that under states laws which have adopted the Model Penal Code, the solicitation does not have to reach the other person. This may actually enable Ashley Madison to consolidate any possible liability.

Furthermore, it is interesting to query the possible liability of television shows/radio shows/websites that have aided in the advertising of this agency (I.e., Dr. Phil, Good Morning America, etc.)

The Agreement AKA Criminal Conspiracy and Attempted Adultery

Conspiracy involves an agreement between two or more persons, an intent to enter into the agreement, and an intent to achieve the objective of the agreement. Thus, when members, either after they are solicited, sign up, or sign up for the adultery service on their own accord, they are entering into an agreement with the intent to achieve the objective of the agreement. Therefore, it would appear that any active accounts in the Ashley Madison database are considered illegal via criminal conspiracy. Readers should note that the agreement does not have to be express as criminal conspiracy recognizes implied agreements too.

The Overall Scheme AKA Aiding and Abetting in Criminal Activity

The above demonstrates the propensity for the Ashley Madison Agency to aid and abet criminal behavior. Thus, the agency might be liable as a coconspirator/codefendant.

Contractual issues: VOID AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY, CONTRACT TO ENTER INTO AN ILLEGAL TRANSACTION

Parties seeking to rescind their contracts might be able to challenge their membership agreements by arguing that the contract/membership agreement is void as against public policy, or that it is a contract to enter into an illegal transaction and thus void. Ultimately this means that over 4.5 million membership agreements are simply void.

Pay me… Please.

While I do recognize that Florida’s adultery law is an “old law on the books” and that the Government may not care because we will assume the revenues are reported, and taxes are paid, it is interesting to consider that government acquiescence might lead some to believe that the government is an inadvertent promoter of illegal conduct.